Mobility

WUPR 39.3 DEC. 2023

Washington University Political Review

Mobility Washington University Political Review

WUPR.org

MOBILITY

Table of Contents MOBILITY

NATIONAL

04

30

06

Theme Spread Emory Marcuson Metro Magic Matthew Shepetin

07

Artwork Daniel Moroze

INTERNATIONAL 18

08

The Moon as a New Political Frontier Irene Hermann

10

Waking Up From the American Dream Maya Santhanam

26

What British Tories Reveal About the GOP Romen Der Manuelian

12

The Journey Down: Demographic Collapse Josef Westberg

28

Old Habits Die Hard in Haiti Toby Zimmerman

13

Artwork Ethan Loderstedt

14

Beyond Affirmative Action: A New Horizon Leo Huang

16

The "What" and "Why" of AI Chip Regulations Matt Mande

19

Is Barbie a Feminist?

Emily Gordon

20

The Need for Speed Alan Knight

21

Artwork Ceci Gutierrez Torreseptien

22

To the Committee on Admissions Jack Samet

23

FRAUD: When an Election Was "STOLEN" Evan Hunt

27

Is Education the Universal Escape From Poverty?

Da'juantay Wynter

31

Circular Migration: Good or Bad? Emily Woodruff

31

QAnon Shaman, Libertarian Congressman?

Eric Zimmerman Polarization Puts the U.S. Military at Risk Weldon Smith

Beyond the Veil: The Dormant Islamaphobia in French Secularism (Laïcité) Dommii DeMichele

Editors' Note Executive Director Tyler Quigley

Editors-in-Chief Will Gunter Celia Rattner Matt Shepetin

Design Directors Lea Despotis Daniel Moroze

Staff Editors Jordan Bradstreet Harrison Goodman Cohn Emily Gordon Leo Huang Michael Qian Jeffrey Tian

Features Editor Alexis Hyde

Design Leads Ethan Loderstedt Ben Eskenazi

Web Editor Jeremy Stiava

Front Cover Ben Eskenazi

Theme Spread Emory Marcuson Back Cover Lea Despotis

Dear Reader, As the calendar year draws to a close, the editorial staff at WUPR is looking forward to end-of-the-year festivities, a temporary release from the rigors of academic life, and a change in season. As we reflect on the past semester and all of our achievements — as students, writers, thinkers, and members of our political society — we are grateful.

But one quick glance at the front page of any newspaper reveals that there is much to be done: tumult in the House of Representatives, burgeoning climate concerns, and heightened conflict in the Middle East flood the headlines daily.

Progress is no easy feat, and often requires a look backward in order to mobilize toward positive change. Our theme for the final issue of the fall 2023 term aims to capture this hope for what’s to come, while also taking space to consider the issues and topics that present challenges to societal progress.

In our theme section, writers interpret the “Mobility” theme literally and metaphorically, attempting to address concerns of infrastructure, immigration, and education, among other institutions, both domestically and abroad. In "The Need for Speed" Alan Knight makes the case for a comprehensive system of high-speed railways in the U.S., while Irene Hermann takes her exploration of mobility a bit further (to space) in "The Moon as a New Political Frontier".

In addressing mobility more abstractly, a number of other writers critique the American education system and its effects on the upward mobility of our citizenry — make sure to read Da'juantay Wynter's personal reflection on this topic in "Is Education the Universal Escape From Poverty?"

In the national section, Eric Zimmerman delves into the persona of Jacob Shanan, also known as the QAnon Shaman, who gained nationwide notoriety from his involvement in the Janaury 6 Capitol riots. This issue also contains analyses of international politics. To learn about Islamaphobia in French Secularism (colloquially referred to as laïcité), take a gander to page 18 for Dommii DeMichele's piece on the matter.

Social Media Editor Jeffrey Tian

We would like to thank all of the editors, designers, artists, and writers for contributing to the production of this magazine — this December issue is one our largest issues to date! And a special thank you to our readers for keeping WUPR a vibrant community of dialogue and thought. We hope you enjoy reading the Mobility Issue.

Treasurer Larry Liu

Yours truly, Will Gunter, Celia Rattner, and Matt Shepetin Editors-in-Chief

St. LOUIS: the Do Dowtown and the Arch Grounds Central West End Forest Park, Clayton, and University City Delmar Blvd

Boeng Olin Chemical Corp.

Emerson Electric Ameren

ormant City

Washington University Political Review

Metro Magic Matthew Shepetin

E

nter Washington D.C.’s Dupont Circle Metro Station and be greeted by an architectural masterpiece. As you descend the station’s 188-foot-long escalator, one of the longest in North America, and lay witness to architect Harry Weese’s magnum opus — a subway system that has come to be defined by its elegance.

Pass through the fare gates and be enveloped by the stunning Brutalist architecture, a timeless specimen of the mid-20th century modernist architecture movement. Look up and feel the iconic vaulted tunnel rise dozens of feet above your head, beckoning you to journey deeper into the system. Look down and see a grid of hexagonal terracotta tiles contrasting beautifully with the pale gray of the concrete. The station’s indirect lighting — circular portholes recessed

Lay witness to architect Harry Weese’s magnum opus. into the platform's edge and bright spotlights nestled behind the platform — illuminates the station from below, drawing your eye up and around, where the tunnel’s rectangular coffers create a sense of symmetry and movement. Sit on a concrete bench and feel a profound sense of smallness as you wait for your train. Just as you’ve come to terms with the station’s grandeur, the porthole lights on the platform's edge blink in unison. Your train is arriving.

Step into the retrofuturistic train car, take a seat on a blue padded bench and wait for your 200-meter-long chariot to whisk you away.

As you travel at 40 miles per hour under the bustling streets of our nation’s capital, you think about what it took to build this system. Six lines and 98 stations spread over three distinct jurisdictions.

One-thousand-three-hundredeighteen rail cars. One-hundred-thirty miles of track. Five-hundred-thousand riders every day.

All built in the last 50 years. From groundbreaking on December 9th, 1969, it took hundreds of

6

workers nearly eight years to build and open the first section of the metro — a 4.6-mile portion of the red line, the line on which you are currently riding, that extends from Farragut North in the west to Rhode Island Avenue in the east.

In the following ten years, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) would add three more lines and over 50 new stations.

You think about how each one of these underground stations was designed with the same principles in mind — uniformity, visual elegance, and functionality. The 600-foot long tunnels, and 30-foot high ceilings create a sense of openness and safety. Platforms are designed with information pillars rather than overhead signage, increasing ease of use and reducing visual noise. The simplicity creates a space where people and energy can flow freely from one end of the platform to the other. The recessed lighting behind the platforms illuminates the ceiling above, contributing to a feeling of grandness and simultaneously reduces dark spaces and harsh shadows. The wide walls are out of reach to travelers, eliminating the risk of defacement. The signature ceiling pattern above you is repeated in almost every station, only interrupted by track intersections. The long, repeated rectangles visually please you and subconsciously point you in the right direction, guiding you on and off the platform effortlessly. The uniform design of each station is a message — each stop is not an individual point but a link in a network. A network that can take you anywhere you need to go.

You arrive at Metro Center and marvel at these design principles in play. This transfer hub, where the Blue, Orange, Silver, and Red lines converge, is the city’s busiest and most beautiful station. As you step off the train, the interesting vaults of the four lines create a massive cathedral of transportation. The double-tall station is a palace of ordered chaos. North/ South and East/West trains fly over and under each other as tourists and commuters scramble from one platform to another. You need the Blue Line. Signage on the wall points you in the right direction and you should find your way easily. The font, the size, the color, the

contrast — everything down to the spacing of the letters is designed for human readability.

Your path down to the blue line is made simple by the station’s design — the shape of the platform guides you right to the escalator. It’s all designed for you. For everyone. Yes, everyone. 100% of WMATA Metrorail stations and rail cars are ADA accessible. In New York, only 27% of subway stations are accessible. Not that we’re counting.

You find another bench and patiently await the arrival of your next train. The well-placed signage suggests a five-minute wait. You occupy yourself by studying the station’s art installa-

Think of the congestion and chaos of the streets above and scoff. tion — Scenes of Washington, a painted mural depicting scenes of the nation’s capital. You’re reminded of all the art you’ve been treated to underground. “Tunnel Vision” at Bethesda, “Pulse” at Farragut North, “From a Model to a Rainbow” at Takoma, “The Glory of Chinese Descendants” at Gallery Place-Chinatown. You could go on.

You realize that everything — from the intentional location of each stop to the layout of the stations, from the coffered ceilings to the terracotta tiles, from the artwork to the wayfinding — everything has been carefully and purposely designed to make your Metro journey as pleasant and convenient as possible. You think of the congestion and chaos of the streets above and scoff.

Matthew Shepetin ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at m.r.shepetin@ wustl.edu.

MOBILITY

Artwork by Daniel Moroze

7

Washington University Political Review

The Moon as a New Political Frontier Irene Herrmann

W

e’re going back to the moon. One year from now, humanity will be within lunar orbit for the first time since the famous Apollo missions half a century ago. NASA’s Artemis II is set to complete a lunar orbit in November 2024, a ten-day voyage that will test new launching and spacecraft technology. The spacecraft will be manned by four people, including the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave Earth’s orbit.

Although these are important accomplishments, little else stands out about Artemis II, or even Artemis III, NASA’s future mission to land astronauts on the lunar surface. After all, twenty-four people have already visited the moon in a less technologically advanced world. So why are we repeating history?

Although the Cold War-era Space Race has long concluded, development and exploration of space has never slowed down. Astronauts have visited space every year since 1961, satellite proliferation continues, and plans to visit or even colonize Mars are constantly discussed by corporations and governments alike. This last goal is the aim behind the Artemis Program, a threepart mission announced by NASA in 2017, led by the United States and other partnering governments. Artemis II is the intermediate phase between the uncrewed flight test of NASA’s launch system, Artemis I, and future crewed missions to land mankind back on the lunar surface to conduct research and establish a longterm presence, Artemis III. According to NASA, the moon isn’t a step backwards, but rather the future research and physical launchpad for missions to Mars and other areas of space.

America isn’t the only country eyeing a return to the moon. India’s uncrewed Chandrayaan-3 rover landed on the lunar surface in August, and Japan’s SLIM mission is set to follow in January.

Israel, Korea, and Russia also have active moon exploration programs. Most significantly, China’s Chang’e missions have already seen the nation become the first to send a rover to the far side of the moon in 2019, and they plan to return the first-ever samples from that little-explored

8

region next year. Given these rival advances, it appears that NASA’s Artemis Program is not only determined to pioneer lunar ambitions, but also to avoid being the only power left behind.

America’s renewed interest in visiting the moon began nearly two decades ago with George W. Bush. On January 15th, 2004, the former president delivered a speech seeking $1 billion more in NASA funding for a myriad of space ambitions, including a return to the lunar surface to mine for resources and develop an intermediate launching station for further deep-space exploration. This wasn’t the first time American leaders had expressed interest in the moon. In fact, Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, had attempted a similar plan during his presidency, but was unsuccessful due to little interest or funding.

This time would be different. The younger Bush insisted the price tag would be well worth the scientific advancements, resource wealth, and improved national spirit that would come from his space policy: an investment that would "be repaid many times over" and welcome collaboration with similarly minded nations. Other

Whether the Moon is used for spacecraft launching, resource extraction, scientific research, or even tourism is a question best answered by an international body, or at least cooperating powers. safe, and wealthy. governments took notice, with China approving their own lunar exploration program that same month. Since Bush’s declaration, NASA has been taking steps towards a return to the Moon, with Congress approving the proposed space exploration budget and subsequent presidential

administrations reaffirming the moon as a priority in their respective space policies, with some adjustments. That said, Bush’s interest in returning to the moon was not universally praised. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, stated in 2003 that “a moon shot alone seems more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs.” Instead he proposed a separate orbiting launchpad for missions to deep space. Considering those doubts, how has lunar progress, and Bush’s promise of a repaid investment held up with the present-day Artemis Program?

As mentioned, the Artemis Program views the moon not as a final destination, but a means for research, resources, and a launchpad for loftier goals, namely Mars and deeper space exploration. Overall, commercial exploitation of the moon remains a distant goal. Although China may return far-side samples from the moon next year, the Science and Technology Policy Institute finds little indication that extraction of water or minerals to support manned-missions will be possible in the next several years, let alone any profitable, large-scale mining.

Whether America or other nation’s technological developments on the moon are “paying off” in scientific research seems a question too early to answer, as lunar missions overall are still in their trial phases and are not guaranteed successes. This can be seen with the Luna 25 accident, Russia’s recent attempt to return to the Moon that resulted in their spacecraft crashing into the lunar surface. In contrast, NASA’s attempts have fared better — Artemis I successfully completed its 25.5 day mission orbiting around the moon a year ago, which proved the readiness of the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) for the subsequent Artemis missions. Still, one mission isn’t enough to draw a definitive conclusion on whether Artemis has paid off. While scientific progress continues, the political norms and conflicts developing alongside it give Bush’s description of lunar exploration as an “investment” a new and equally important meaning for America’s success in outer space.

MOBILITY Along with the Artemis Program came the Artemis Accords in 2020, a non-binding multilateral agreement between the United States government and thirty-one other governments.

The Artemis Accords reaffirm compliance with previous UN guidelines for space, and outline principles for signatories to abide by. Signing the Accords is a prerequisite for interested nations to participate in the Artemis Program, and signals an attempt to codify some space norms into law. Key provisions include a commitment to scientific transparency, peaceful exploration, and an aim to keep resource extraction and lunar infrastructure sustainable and collaborative. Unsurprisingly, the list of signatories consists of mostly Western governments and their allies, with neither Russia or China included. In fact, the 2011 Wolf Amendment prohibits NASA

It appears NASA’s Artemis Program is not only determined to pioneer lunar ambitions, but also to not be the only power left behind. from cooperating with the Chinese government without FBI approval. China and Russia have their own political ambitions in space, most significantly, the International Lunar Research Station, a prospective multi-purpose research facility planned for either the lunar surface or orbit in the 2030s. This will undoubtedly come with its own expectations for other governments interested in participating, which includes nations such as Pakistan, Venezuela, and as of last month, Belarus. The Artemis Accords have also gained new signatories recently, with the addition of India back in June drawing significant attention, considering the nation’s aforementioned success by already landing a rover on the moon. As both the American and Chinese lunar projects continue to gain more partners, it is safe to say that global political interest in returning to the moon will only grow.

With several nations now invested in lunar programs, political blocs are forming around the two world superpowers’ legal, scientific, and commercial goals. These developments have restored the moon’s status as a new frontier, as opposed to the step backward that some critics previously labeled it as. But while the prospect

of greater scientific knowledge is alluring, with programs like Artemis and the International Lunar Research Station serving that purpose, to what degree do these institutions still serve as extensions of ongoing issues down on Earth?

This is not to lead into any sort of argument that the scientific research in outer space is irrelevant, inapplicable, or frivolous to earthly concerns. In fact, NASA is a leader in climate research that directly impacts our understanding of human-induced climate change, necessary for policy that adapts to or fights climate-related issues. Rather, it is a question of how unique space-related challenges are from Earthly issues, and a call to envision the moon as a new frontier for international norms and institutions. The Artemis Accords might be doing exactly that: laying out a framework for a collaborative future on the moon. But the Accords could also be viewed as Westerncentric, dangerously divisive, or out of step with modernized international norms, as reported by law professor Rossana Deplano. Regardless, the lack of major power signatories to the Accords, like China and Russia, and America’s position as the main leader of the Accords do not signify a neutral or cooperative global mindset when it comes to the future of space exploration. Which players are more at fault for creating a competitive atmosphere is a matter of opinion, but

resource extraction, scientific research, or even tourism is a question best answered by an international body, or at least cooperating powers.

How this can be accomplished is no easy question, but it is important to think about as nations rush to launch new attempts at the moon.

Mankind’s return to the moon may repeat history, but the lunar surface can clearly serve as a launchpad for groundbreaking political developments, just as it has with scientific discoveries.

Irene Herrmann ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at herrmann@wustl. edu.

Rather, it is a question of how unique spacerelated challenges are from Earthly issues, and a call to envision the Moon as a new frontier for international norms and institutions. the need to address it remains unless we seek another space race.

International governing bodies have always had difficulty enforcing law and mediating between actors on Earth, and the same anarchical principles make this just as difficult on the moon. The difference is in the moon’s relatively clean slate: besides an American flag and a few astronaut footprints, the opportunity for truly neutral or globally owned land still exists in a unique way.

Whether it is used for spacecraft launching,

9

Washington University Political Review

Waking up From The American Dream Maya Santhanam

D

efined by James Truslow Adams, the American Dream is of a "land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement." The underlying principle of the Dream is that all Americans, regardless of race, creed, color, or religion, can achieve success in life by tapping into their potential and willingness to work hard.

This definition of success is closely tied to the accumulation of material wealth and serves as a metaphor that works for the winners of the educational and vocational game but remains elusive for a constantly growing majority as the wealth gap expands. Over centuries, this worldview has been ingrained in American history, dating back to the very beginning of the New World. John Winthrop, a Puritan founder of New England, delivered his famous "Model of Christian Charity," which serves as one of the clearest examples of the Dream's impact and promise. As conveyed in his sermon, it was God's will for there to be economic inequality, and God's divine will alone would determine the success or failure of the colony; the people, however, could work to ensure success by trusting in the leadership of their authority figures.

However, the average 21st-century American may find this Dream ancient, irrelevant, or inaccurate. After all, Americans' distrust of nearly every major social institution, including the federal government, corporate America, the media, and organized religion, continues to grow.

At the same time, statistical trends indicate declining social mobility and individual success.

Quantitatively, Chetty et al. confirm that absolute income mobility has fallen across all income brackets from 1940 to 1980, with the most significant declines in the middle class; in addition, the data highlights the predominant role of increased economic inequality in driving this decline, meaning both the gap and the inability to decrease the gap are growing. Additionally, the notion of America's decline is widely propagated through social media, campaigns, and news segments, fostering a shared perspective evident in cross-party attacks, promises

10

to "Make America Great Again," and more.

Despite these conditions, a surprising collective outlook remains: the American Dream.

So if the American Dream is not entirely motivated by the present political and economic conditions, why aren't all Americans able to manipulate the rules of capitalism to work their way up? Why are Americans generally unconfident in their ability to live a better life than their parents? Why don't the flaws within our social institutions provide a complete answer as to why such a majority is not achieving the American Dream? The response to this inquiry can manifest diversely, with no single factor providing a comprehensive understanding.

One interpretation posits that the American

Rags to Riches. Home of the Free. Land of Opportunity. America is the place where you can have it all. Wake up in your king-sized bed, kiss the kids and wife goodbye, put in a good day’s work, and come back to bed, just to do it all again tomorrow, until one day, you retire comfortably — happy, healthy, safe, and wealthy.

Dream serves to uphold the existing order, a circumstance that, problematically, validates power disparities and impedes upward mobility. Instead of questioning the Dream, we as Americans are more likely to blame ourselves when the Dream is not achieved, which allows for maintained faith in the Dream irrespective

of its actual achievability. The answer to why this is may be found through an unconventional approach shedding insights into the pervasive forces underestimated and ignored in American society.

Viewing the American Dream as a comprehensive worldview allows for its evaluation under a Geertzian definition of religion and thus, a Marxist analysis of religion and alienation.

Geertz defines religion as a system of symbols that establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. His definition revolves around the concepts of "worldview" and "ethos," meaning a system of beliefs and symbols that gives significance to the experiences and existence of individuals within a particular cultural context, and the associated feelings with the worldview, respectively. To draw a connection between Geertz and the American Dream, the Dream uniquely falls under his definition seeing as the American Dream involves a set of beliefs and symbols related to individual success, upward mobility, and the pursuit of happiness, with an associated ethos contingent on hard work, individualism, and success.

In characterizing the Dream as a religion under Geertz's definition, a Marxist critique of religion thus may be applied. Marx argues that human beings have always been motivated by basic needs of survival that can only be met through a mode of production, chaining overall success and survival to our economic mobility. In this context, a Marxist critique would undoubtedly be that the Dream acts as an opium of the people, providing illusionary relief from the real struggles of economic alienation. It justifies and upholds the status quo by giving grounds for how things are. Taking the example of stealing, to Marx, social institutions such as the state and religion protect the rich by not only imprisoning those who steal but also, more

MOBILITY powerfully, by promoting ideas that stealing is wrong. Similarly, the internalized ideologies of the American Dream convince Americans that if they have not achieved the Dream, it is their fault, not the socioeconomic conditions that have been proven to limit their mobility.

Across several studies, Chetty et al. find that income inequality is disconnected from the people's demands of government. However, the results of Chetty et al. also demonstrate that the public is still responsive to changes in income inequality and social mobility. In this light, it appears that the electorate recognizes the increasing challenges of achieving the Dream but doesn't associate this issue with the governmental structures exacerbating social divides.

Instead, they fault inequality more with themselves. Thus, the faith in the American Dream persists, but in faulting themselves, the attainability of the Dream for each person becomes unlikely. The implications of this trend are twofold. On the positive side, Americans may be discovering motivation to exert heightened efforts and pursue success in suburban endeavors, even amidst challenges. This has the potential to cultivate an optimistic worldview and foster a corresponding ethos within American culture. However, the predominant impact of this trend is exacerbated inequality, resulting in a net negative for society.

America is supposedly a land with opportunity for each according to ability; however, for many groups, this opportunity is either nonexistent or consistently unequal. Americans with disabilities navigate cultural attitudes and values that often pathologize, disempower, and dehumanize their existence. By incorporating the American Dream into the collective societal worldview without ensuring inclusivity, we inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of individuals with disabilities, reinforcing barriers to their full participation and the realization of their aspirations. The same power differential exists in race relations, class relations, and all other categories that create divides in society, which leads to the worsening of preexisting divides and a never-ending cycle of polarization and division. Even as recently as the late 1900s, residential segregation, among many other kinds of segregation, made it significantly less feasible for African Americans and other minorities to receive the benefits of our "cooperative" scheme and confined many to the opposite of the American suburban Dream, where traditional hard work could never ensure success. It

is the pervasive nature of the American Dream that helps the privileged maintain their higher position in the power differential and pushes minority groups into cycles of stagnancy.

While this phenomenon is no small or individual factor in American society, there are still ways to combat its adverse effects moving forward. The first recommendation is working to increase the attainability of the American Dream for all through measures including technical education for middle- and low-income students that equip them for the increasingly high-tech, globalized economy; tax policy that avoids "bracket creep," the results of which may include lower marginal tax rates and progressive taxation; the strengthening of labor unions; policy also supporting two-parent families (as opposed to the current policy mainly focusing resources solely on one-parent families); and other measures which promote broad-based

Does the American Dream inspire ambition or subtly mold us into complacency?

Trapped in the American Dream, we perpetuate power differentials — breaking free may require reimagining the dream itself.

his 2020 report "Hierarchies of power" calls on all Americans to "confront the compulsory able-bodied normative culture, unmasking the narrow assumptions that create and sustain power, control, and exclusion." This may be accomplished in part by advocating for the social model of disability, which switches the focus of disability policy from individual impairments to the transformation of social systems, thereby acknowledging that health and well-being are socially determined and combating complacency to the status quo. Manifestation of this shift takes forms that transform material conditions by creating more accessible accommodation, education, employment, and social services. The spirit of the American Dream can and will endure amid the realities we face, but it is our responsibility to utilize this collective ethos to dismantle the power differentials and restructure America as a "land of opportunity" for all.

Maya Santhanam ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at m.j.santhanam@ wustl.edu.

economic growth, mobility, and equality. Many of these changes are much easier suggested than implemented, but reassuringly, they are more politically attainable than imagined. This is because the relative liberalism or conservatism of the public's policy preferences does not seem to drive people's belief in the American Dream as determined by Wolak and Peterson in "The Dynamic American Dream," suggesting that the American Dream is instead a shared, nonpartisan system of belief. Therefore, formulating policies based on our shared ideology enhances the likelihood that new policies will steer clear of the pitfalls of polarization.

Concerning the implications towards people with disabilities and that industrial capitalism initially established the still prevalent conditions in which people with impairments were unable to meet the demands of wage labor, Clifton, in

11

Washington University Political Review

The Journey Down: Demographic Collapse Josef Westberg

O

verpopulation is, first and foremost, a hoax. For decades we have been fed a vicious lie, that inevitably our planet will fail to keep up with the taxing demands of the human species. However, upon closer scrutiny, the data seem to suggest that we are in fact heading toward population collapse. While it’s true that the world population has more than doubled over the past fifty years, the rate of growth has been slashed by more than half.

What’s more concerning is that these numbers also take into account developing countries where fertility rates are still high. We’ll come to see that as nations develop, population decline becomes a far more pressing matter.

People are living longer and having fewer children, and it’s likely to manifest as an economic and humanitarian nightmare if we aren’t careful. It isn’t inherently bad that the population growth rate is sinking. In fact, one of the driving factors of the declining fertility rate is the edu-

Overpopulation is, first and foremost, a hoax. cation of women. Another reason why the mean population age is on the rise can be attributed to advances in medicine and access to resources.

While this dilemma may be the result of societal advances, it’s certainly not a “good problem” to have. Our society, both domestically and at large, depends on working-age citizens not only for economic output but also for tax revenue.

Social Security in America is a pay-as-you-go system. The government doesn’t simply hold onto the money you give them, only to hand it back later. Instead, the taxes you pay for social security now are outgoing to people currently collecting checks. When you begin collecting Social Security payments, the tax base will fund that too. The problem arises when the non-working, elderly population grows and the working taxpayer population shrinks. Tax revenues go down and beneficiaries

12

go up. It’s like baking a smaller pie for more folks to eat. The result: tiny slices, and people go hungry.

So how did this happen? Replacement-level fertility, according to the United Nations, describes the idea that an average of 2.1 children per woman is required to maintain the society’s population. When the fertility rate drops below replacement level, the average age of the population will increase, and eventually the overall population will decline. The fertility rate drops for a variety of reasons, including increased education, access to contraception, norm changes, and environmental concerns. Furthermore, as nations become more developed and less agrarian, having many children can become more of a financial liability than an asset.

While this issue seems in many ways to be unavoidable, there are steps we can take to soften the blow. One way involves reframing our understanding of the world’s demographics. The current prevailing narrative seems to be that we are grossly overpopulated and that there are insufficient resources to go around.

However, this seems to be based in myth. The Cato Institute points out that, “global time prices of resources…fell by 84 percent between 1960 and 2018” and that, “the personal resource abundance of the average inhabitant of the

Despite the population rising by billions, we see that resources are far more abundant. globe rose… 527 percent.” Despite the population rising by billions in that period, we see that resources are far more abundant. As such, our culture desperately needs to reframe the population problem.

Economic incentives are a tricky business when it comes to this issue. After all, it seems to be

the case that as people become more affluent, they are actually less likely to have children.

I would argue, however, that incentivization which purely benefits those who choose to have children may still prove prospective. Increasing child tax credits may be a viable example of this.

Another major issue is that it is becoming more and more unaffordable to purchase a home to start a family in. Zoning reform, streamlining permit processes, and minimizing overbearing construction regulations would all help promote increases in housing supply.

Finally, America must seriously consider increasing immigration over time. The United States’ current fertility rate is 1.66, far below the replacement level of 2.1. In fact, the only thing currently keeping our population afloat is immigration. We should actively be seeking out young talent from across the globe and be taking them in to make new lives here, both metaphorically and literally. There are people around the world who want to be in America, and America needs them. Without an influx of outside labor, our economy is bound to eventually wither and rot, right along with our aging population. It doesn’t come without hiccups, but it ought not to be ignored any longer.

If we don’t act with haste, I worry that we will regret. We will regret the silent cradles, the playing children missing from our streets, and the untold brilliance of the future generation’s minds. I worry we will regret not baking a larger pie.

Josef Westberg '27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached out to at j.r.westberg@ wustl.edu

MOBILITY

Artwork by Ethan Loderstedt

13

Washington University Political Review

Beyond Affirmative Action: A New Horizon Leo Huang

A

fter years of travail for the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v.

Harvard (SFFA v. Harvard) and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina on June 29, 2023. The 6–2 majority in SFFA v. Harvard ruled that the race-conscious admission policies of elite institutions in the U.S. violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and were thus unconstitutional. As succinctly put

by Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion, “[most universities] have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

means that colleges would “prefer a class with 15% of students from Mexico over a class with 10% of students from several Latin American countries," merely because the former option provides more Hispanic students.

While Affirmative Action (AA) had the good intention of uplifting marginalized communities and remedying historical disparities in higher education and employment when it was first put into practice in the 1960s, it has failed to

Most troubling of all, a close examination of Harvard’s admissions data from 2009-2018 yields problematic findings. The relevant graph in one of the amicus briefs demonstrates that the proportions for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian students were virtually unchanged during that decade, despite drastic fluctuations in the populations of these demographics. Not only does this mean that the AA policies have failed to bring more diversity to college campuses under the current population composition, but the rigidity of Harvard’s admissions essentially replicates the racial quotas expressly prohibited in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).

With lawsuits arising to contest the paradoxical existence of legacy admissions in a country founded on meritocracy, we are finally dismantling the archaic, moribund structures surrounding higher education, brick by brick. accomplish its original objectives, while creating more discrimination in society through over-generalizations that look at students as a group rather than individuals. The majority opinion in the SFFA v. Harvard documents several crucial shortfalls, including the judgment that “the use of these opaque racial categories”

14

Moreover, Roberts argues that colleges believe there’s an “inherent benefit” in race, stating “Harvard’s admissions process rests on the pernicious stereotype that ‘a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.'” The dissent echoes the perpetuation of such views, which according to Roberts would manifest in the form of “a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin.”

Another issue with the status quo is that it completely neglects the warning of former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor when she penned the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

She explained that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time,” adding that the “Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

20 years after Grutter, the same policies were still being implemented in the same way, implying two things. First, the policies have utterly failed to improve the conditions of communities they were intended to benefit. Second, government institutions are either not aware of the

inherently biased tendencies of these policies or are willing to let the current situation persist.

Of course, the critiques above are not to say that AA has no merit at all. Generally speaking, diversity leads to more beneficial outcomes in educational environments, and a student’s background and the community one belongs to

In adherence with America’s core founding principle of individualism, we have the onus of evaluating every individual according to one’s unique life experiences and merits, not through a lens that denigrates one to a mere component of a collective group, determined by one’s creed or other intrinsic qualities. should still play a role in admissions. However, they must be looked at on an individual basis in order to avoid the trope of stereotyping. Wash U’s adjustment in its application to include supplemental essays about one’s community and personal circumstances immaculately achieves such goals. In adherence with America’s core founding principle of individualism, we have the onus of evaluating every individual according to one’s unique life experiences and merits, not through a lens that denigrates one to a mere component of a collective group, determined by one’s creed or other intrinsic qualities.

In fact, some form of AA is needed. Wealth

MOBILITY has a strong positive correlation with educational outcomes, so it is imperative to shift to socioeconomic AA that accounts for disparities across social classes. While proponents of traditional AA argue that socioeconomic status is correlated with race, they fail to recognize differences within ethnic groups. For instance, among Asian Americans, Indian Americans have some of the lowest poverty rates in the U.S., at 6%. However, Burmese and Mongolian Americans have some of the highest poverty rates in all of America, both at 25%, much higher than the national average of 12.4%. For these reasons, this new version of AA would inherit the benefits of its past, uplifting low income students into the domain of higher education, while accounting for individual differences. The implementation would not be difficult either, since most colleges already allow students to file their families’ income status during processes such as financial aid. Such a system would optimally provide social mobility for people of all backgrounds on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. While this change has not occurred yet, we are trending in the right direction. With lawsuits arising to contest the paradoxical existence of legacy admissions in a country founded on meritocracy, we are finally dismantling the archaic structures surrounding higher education, brick by brick.

So far, I’ve only discussed the potential alterations that impact college admissions. But we must not limit ourselves to just the scope of higher education. AA has long been a fragile band-aid, enshrouding root issues that remain unresolved. For instance, the racial achievement gap in education between students of color and white students has been static for almost 30 years, despite concerted efforts to close it.

The precedence of short-term results in current policymaking, as highlighted by Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, meant that schools failed to develop in the long-run and prepare students for the future. In light of these critical failures, the truth is that America’s entire education system needs a radical overhaul.

In recent years, we’ve seen huge disparities between the array of opportunities offered at public and private schools. Private schools have used their connections and resources to further entrench their pipelines to elite institutions, funneling more students to prestigious universities.

On the other hand, public schools, especially those in low-income districts, have experienced nothing but sharp declines in educational

quality and student outcomes: a myriad of factors including difficulties onset by the pandemic combine to exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline for students in these places, reducing the chances of kids who grow up in these neighborhoods to ever find their “ticket out the ghetto.”

of education and send most of their students to college. Thus, a feasible solution is to use these schools as a benchmark. We can identify the amount they spend per pupil and drastically increase federal or state funding to schools that lack resources right now so that they reach the same level.

Moreover, the observed deterioration in public schools has been worsened by the Covid-19 pandemic. An NPR article from 2022 quantified that reading and math scores in public schools have plummeted to levels achieved nearly two decades ago, while a McKinsey & Company report found that these learning gaps disproportionately affected primarily Black and low-income districts. In response, schools have been watering down their curriculums to help students fare better. But have these measures worked? Oregon recently announced that students no longer had to “demonstrate mastery

We inevitably have to redirect billions in funds to educational subsidies. While this solution will be unlikely due to the lobbying of the military industrial complex and other political concerns, the money would ideally come from our defense spending. Fiscal federalism is another option, with the federal government creating incentives for states to comply with the requirements of funding. The last resort is to levy an “Education Tax” vis-à-vis the rise of AI, which will inevitably face opposition from the public but is exigent with artificial intelligence projected to replace as many as 73 million jobs in the U.S. by 2030.

We need to manifest these reforms into reality as soon as possible so that we can better prepare the next generation for an uncertain future.

Coupled with the surge of generative AI, public schools ought to use the potential extra funding to tailor their curriculums to emerging technologies, teaching students how to harness these tools and utilize them to improve learning experiences such as through the implementation of basic computer science classes. This ensures students will possess the necessary skills to remain competitive in tomorrow’s job market.

Rather than lowering educational standards and playing identity politics in the realm of higher education, we must revive the American education system in a meaningful way to prepare this generation for the impending era of AI.

in reading, writing, and math” to graduate, citing statistics that these tests harm students of color. Merely emblematic of the problem, these so-called “reforms” for equity do not fix anything; they will only leave our students even more behind, completely unprepared for the domain of higher education and future careers.

The core of the issues with America’s public education system lies with money. Currently, the chief determinant of the educational quality in a district is its affluence. How much property tax is paid on average in a given zip code is the primary method of funding public schools.

For the moment, at least, public schools in wealthy districts still maintain a decent quality

America’s education system is at a crossroads right now. It faces immense challenges to get students up to par with the standards of modern society while simultaneously struggling with the imperative of providing equity for all.

The antiquated policies of AA have finally faded away, and it is now the dawn of a new era. In conjunction with socioeconomic AA policies that should logically arise, the U.S. federal government has the obligation of providing every public school district with adequate funding, so that no child is truly left behind. Rather than lowering educational standards and playing identity politics in the realm of higher education, we must revive the American education system in a meaningful way to prepare this generation for the impending era of AI. Leo Huang ‘26 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at h.yuliu@wustl.edu.

15

Washington University Political Review

The “What” and “Why” of AI Chip Regulations Matt Mande

A

decade ago, Articial Intelligence (AI) with human-like capabilities may have seemed like something from a science fiction novel. But over the last few years, advancements in the technology behind AI and the release of widely used models like OpenAI’s Chat-GPT have changed the prevalence of AI in day-to-day conversations. For many, humanlevel AI is no longer a sci-fi conception but a likely outcome. As excitement and concern about advances in AI gain traction in public discourse, policymakers are facing greater pressure to establish a governance strategy.

Increased national security threats from AI will also serve to motivate government action. This article aims to explain how regulating access to computational resources, or “compute,” may be a promising initial approach to reducing risks from ungoverned, powerful AI models.

Why might we want to govern frontier AI? Arguably the most powerful emerging technology, AI has the potential to contribute great value to society. But, like other emerging technologies, its potential for good is coupled with potential for harm. Notably, AI has grown — and will grow — exponentially more capable every year. In 2011, language models were unable to produce grammatical sentences; now, models like ChatGPT can quickly compose intelligible and accurate responses to a broad range of prompts. So, when thinking about the benefits and risks posed by AI, it would be a mistake to restrict our thinking to the capabilities of today’s models.

We can think of two broad categories of dangers posed by AI: misuse and misalignment.

Misuse occurs when an individual or group uses AI for malicious ends. For example, an authoritarian regime could use AI to spread misinformation and monitor dissent, or a terrorist organization could access instructions to build dangerous bioweapons through AI. Misalignment describes any scenario where a model fails to pursue its intended objective. You may have heard of AI models tasked with hiring

16

employees or predicting disease risk exhibiting bias against minority groups. Researchers have also observed trends of misaligned models hacking digital games when tasked with winning — a phenomenon called “specification gaming" — or misleading their trainers to receive positive feedback. Such examples illustrate difficulties with training models in ways that reliably produce the desired result — a problem which, as models become increasingly powerful, will lead to greater risks of harm.

Moreover, the above risks are exacerbated by two dynamics. First, companies that release frontier AI models before others are rewarded with large profits, creating incentives to cut corners on safety and expedite the develop-

The risks AI poses, the forces magnifying these risks, and the speed at which the technology is progressing has led many experts to speculate that AI poses an extinctionlevel threat. ment process. Recognizing this dynamic, leaders in computing technology, including Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and thousands of others, signed a letter that unsuccessfully called for a pause in frontier AI development in March.

Second, as models become more capable, AI will provide large advantages to companies and governments that use it. Companies and governments will not only be able to perform tasks more cheaply and quickly by using AI models instead of human labor — they will also generally receive higher quality output. As a result, companies and governments will use AI to handle greater portions of their work, as well as more of the most important tasks. To ensure

the AI completes these tasks successfully, they will have to entrust AI with resources, including data, budgets, and labor. AI’s more central role will also give it increased influence over how companies and governments act. Greater access to resources and a greater weight in decision-making will amplify the risk that unsafe and misaligned models pose to society.

The risks AI poses, the forces magnifying these risks, and the speed at which the technology is progressing have led many experts to speculate that AI poses an extinction-level threat. Such claims are controversial, but AI at least seems worthy of rigorous and extensive governance efforts. While a variety of strategies have been proposed for governing AI, this article will limit itself to one such strategy: compute governance.

What is compute, anyway?

For our purposes, we can think of compute as computing power provided by computer chips.

These chips are the brains of electronic devices: they are responsible for executing operations and storing memory.

The amount of compute a computer system has depends on the number of chips it uses and the quality of these chips. Like brains, computer chips can be faster or slower. We can think about the speed of a computer chip in terms of the operations it is able to carry out per second, often called floating point operations per second, or FLOPS. Just as brains can increase efficiency by working together, so can computer chips — and some can communicate more efficiently than others. The speed at which a computer chip can communicate with other computing chips is its interconnect bandwidth.

When we talk about an increase in compute, then, we’re either talking about an increase in the FLOPS of individual chips, an increase in the speed at which these chips can communicate, or an increase in the total number of chips.

The training process for AI models is especially compute-intensive. Compared to the chips

MOBILITY found in your computer, specialized AI chips are ten to 1000 times faster. And, while a typical laptop will have less than 10 chips, AI models are often trained using thousands. According to Towards Data Science, GPT-4, OpenAI’s frontier AI model, was trained on 25,000 specialized AI chips. Over the past decade, AI systems have used exponentially more compute for training, with compute usage doubling about every six months. In fact, OpenAI estimated that between 2012 and 2018, the compute applied to training frontier models increased by a factor of 300,000. It is widely recognized that these increases in compute have led to otherwise inaccessible improvements in model performance. Compute’s centrality to model development and progress mean that it would be a costly mistake to overlook compute governance as a policy lever.

Why might compute be the most promising policy lever?

Along with compute, data and algorithms also play important roles in the capability of a model.

Data refers to the datasets on which AI models are trained, the quality and quantity of which affect model performance. Algorithms allow models to learn from datasets and adjust to produce more consistent, accurate outputs.

Compute, data, and algorithms are often called the AI Triad. Thinking about compute as one of three factors in AI development is useful for

OpenAI estimated that between 2012 and 2018, the computing power applied to training frontier AI models increased by a factor of 300,000

efforts could attempt to limit theft and prevent diffusion of these resources, data and algorithms cannot be tracked and secured in the same way that a physical product like a computer chip can. The supply chain for chips used in training frontier AI models is dominated by a few large companies, located in the U.S. and allied countries. The U.S. government can, as a result, more easily coordinate with these companies and their home countries to exclude certain groups’ access to their products.

But as promising as compute governance may be, it faces limitations. It currently seems like the most capable AI models are those with access to the most advanced chips. However, improvements in algorithm efficiency and falling costs for current state-of-the-art AI chips will likely reduce the leverage compute governance currently has. In this sense, compute governance may not offer a sustainable solution to threats posed by AI. But further efforts to regulate compute could still prove highly valuable. For example, excluding unwanted groups from access to frontier AI may provide time for the U.S. and its allies to task frontier models with finding safer

Perhaps the most important aspect of AI governance is ensuring that certain groups are unable to train and develop powerful frontier AI models. To this end, compute currently seems like the best factor to use as a bottleneck.

and interconnect bandwidth below which chip exports to China are permissible.

Alongside the U.S., other countries, including the Netherlands and Japan, have also imposed restrictions on exports to China. These restrictions are especially significant given that these two countries, along with the U.S., account for 90% of global sales of chip manufacturing equipment.

Also of note is Biden’s recent executive order, issued in late October, that took a variety of steps toward mitigating AI risk. These steps included requiring companies that surpass given FLOPS and interconnect bandwidth levels to report information about training plans, cybersecurity efforts, and results of model safety evaluations.

While such regulations do not govern compute per se, they do direct greater scrutiny toward models trained on large amounts of compute.

As frontier AI continues to make exponential gains in capability and pose ever-larger risks, compute governance provides an effective short-term strategy for controlling who has access to the most powerful models.

Policymakers should look elsewhere for longterm solutions, but they would be mistaken to overlook further compute regulations or fail to update current regulations in the meantime.

Matt Mande ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at m.mande@wustl.edu.

training methods and other solutions to outstanding problems in AI development.

understanding why it might be the best target for AI governance.

What is already being done to govern compute?

Perhaps the most important aspect of AI governance is ensuring that certain groups, such as oppressive governments or terrorist organizations, are unable to train and develop powerful frontier AI models. To this end, compute currently seems like the best factor to use as a bottleneck. Data and algorithms are both digital and are thus relatively easy to make digital copies of. While cybersecurity and regulatory

Governments have already taken action to limit access to compute. In 2022, the U.S. government established export controls on China that aimed to limit China’s ability to purchase stateof-the-art AI chips and to design and manufacture these chips on their own. In order to avoid restricting exports on other powerful computer chips, including chips used for gaming, the AI chip export specified a threshold for FLOPS

17

Washington University Political Review

Beyond the Veil: The Dormant Islamophobia in French Secularism (Laïcité) Dommii DeMichele

O

ver the past decade, France has fallen victim to some of Europe’s most devastating terrorist attacks. From Charlie Hebdo to Samuel Paty, from November 13th to the Nice Bastille Day attack, these terrorist incidents have undoubtedly left a scar on the French consciousness. In fact, just a few weeks ago, a schoolteacher in the northern French city of Arras was stabbed to death in an attack that French President Emmanuel Macron has condemned as the “barbarity of Islamist terrorism.” A rise in terror attacks has unquestionably shaken the relationship between France and its Muslim population, leading to prominent French politicians on both sides of the political spectrum calling for bans on Muslim head coverings, such as the niqab. In 2020, Macron insulted that relationship even more, stating that “Islam

As immigration has risen over the years, so has xenophobic rhetoric that views both immigrants and Islam as a threat to French culture.” safe, and wealthy. is a religion that is in crisis.” Yet, this contentious relationship has deep roots embedded in French culture, particularly in what the French call "laïcité."

The French concept of laïcité, which translates to secularism, was created by a 1905 law, which officially enshrined a separation between church and state. Laïcité does not ban religious practices in France; it fundamentally ensures the freedom from religion. However, the

application of laïcité has been hostile to certain religious groups throughout its history. It has taken the face of anti-Catholicism and rampant antisemitism in the 20th century and since the beginning of the 21st century, French officials have used laïcité to progress Islamophobic rhetoric and legislation. Even though its application is stained with controversy, laïcité has become a fundamental element of French national and cultural identity. It is inseparable from mainstream political discourse, making its discriminatory nature all the more harmful to France’s minority populations.

France has both one of the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in all of Europe. Its colonial past in North and West Africa is reflected by the influx of immigrants that come from these Muslim-majority countries, such as Algeria and Senegal. As immigration has risen over the years, so has xenophobic rhetoric that views both immigrants and Islam as a threat to French culture. In order to “protect” French cultural values and “combat” the threat of Islamic extremism, French authorities have introduced legislation since 2004 that has weaponized laïcité mainly through a regulation of Islamic dress in public spaces. The veil was first banned in 2004 and in 2010 the French government issued a ban on full-faced coverings such as the niqab in public spaces (TIME). These laws concern all religious articles, including Jewish kippahs and Catholic crosses, however, they have been disproportionally applied to Muslim schoolgirls wearing the veil.

Most recently, Education Minister Gabriel Attal stated that the government was planning on banning the abaya from being worn in schools.

According to the New York Times, “the government believes the role of education is to dissolve ethnic or religious identity in a shared commitment to the rights and responsibilities

of French citizenship and so, as Mr. Attal put it, ‘you should not be able to distinguish or identify the students’ religion by looking at them.”’

Yet, the effort by the French government to ease division and promote “living together” through the dissolution of religious identity has only done the opposite. The application of laïcité, particularly in the 21st century, has furthered divisions between France and its Muslim population. Coupled with the rise of far-right politics in France, as evident by Marine Le Pen's second place finish in the past two presidential elections, general hostility to Islam has become endemic. According to Time, 44.6% of the French population in 2019 considered Muslims a threat to French cultural and national identity.

At the same time, TIME notes that around half of France’s Muslim population had reported religious discrimination, with the majority being Muslim women who have consequentially become the target of laïcité legislation in France. Current legislation has only harbored widespread Islamophobic sentiment in France, doing very little to actually address Islamic extremism in the country and deeply harming France’s relationship with one of its largest and most influential minority populations.

The rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in mainstream political dialogue and legislation is disturbing.

So, too, is the rise of extremist terrorism. France must be able to reconcile not only its colonial past and historical animosity towards its Muslim population but also the disproportionate and discriminatory effects of laïcité. If Macron really wants to decrease division and quell separatism, he must aim to heal France’s relationship with its Muslim minority, not antagonize it. The failure to do so will only perpetuate strife and feed the stomach of extremism.

Dommii DeMichele ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at d.demichele@ wustl.edu.

18

MOBILITY

Is Barbie a Feminist?

Emily Gordon

C

hildren across the nation are taught ideals of female empowerment and mobility through the accomplishments of Barbie. While Barbie is a household name, it became even more widespread with this summer’s "Barbie" movie, directed by Greta Gerwig.

Released the same day as "Oppenheimer," many saw this as the perfect representation of femininity and masculinity being played out in theaters. The inherent competition between these two movies brought high viewership to both. According to Statista, "Barbie" grossed over $635 million in the North American box office and $1.44 billion worldwide, as of October 25, 2023. With these high viewership numbers, one could argue that Barbie effectively advanced feminist ideals to a widespread audience. However, some critics state that "Barbie" did not bring the message far enough. In fact, "Barbie" is criticized for only representing the stereotypical, idealized female body, despite the creators trying to move beyond these beauty standards and be more inclusive. In my opinion,

Children across the nation are taught ideals of female empowerment and mobility through the accomplishments of Barbie. while "Barbie" should have taken the message further to truly make a significant impact on the feminist movement, there is value in how "Barbie" shared feminist ideals with such a large audience, including some who would not typically see a movie expressing these opinions.

If you were unable to see the movie this summer, here’s a quick review. The Barbies live in a seemingly perfect world centered around them, where each Barbie has a different role, ranging from President Barbie to Nobel Prize Winner Barbie to Doctor Barbie. However, Stereotypical Barbie notices imperfections in herself and experiences ​​existential thoughts regarding life

and death. To fix this, she travels to the real world with her boyfriend Ken, who is unimportant in Barbieland. While Barbie is jarred by a horrible patriarchal society, Ken finally feels seen. When they return to Barbieland, with human Mattel employee Gloria and her daughter Sasha, the Kens transform Barbieland to a similar patriarchal society where the Barbies are relegated to second-class roles. This is incredibly harmful to Barbie’s sense of self-worth, but Gloria and Sasha give Barbie a convincing speech about societal expectations of women to motivate her to steal Barbieland back from the Kens. The movie ends as the Barbies regain power in Barbieland, but start to treat everyone as equal citizens.

This movie attempts to advance feminist ideals and argues that society places oppressive expectations upon women. It successfully represents women, people of color, and differently-abled individuals who are constricted in a society built for and by able-bodied white men. For example, Barbieland’s President is Black female actress Issa Rae, Doctor Barbie is played by transgender actor Hari Nef, and other members of the LGBTQ+ community, Alexandra Shipp and Scott Evans, have several onscreen moments. This is crucial in making viewers everywhere feel represented. Further, as explained by Business Insider, there are several differently-abled Barbies throughout the movie, including one Barbie who uses a wheelchair and another Barbie who has a bionic arm.

However, this inclusion does not go far enough.

As argued by 13-year-old Sasha, Barbie continues to set completely unrealistic beauty standards. Physical Barbie dolls have long maintained these expectations, and unfortunately the movie does not differ from them. Further, Barbies and Kens of different races all had the same traits; no one was represented with any unique characteristics or culture, and no messages about race or racial issues were shared.

Lastly, differently-abled Barbies are given few speaking parts, representative of the way these individuals are ignored or silenced in our real world.

"Barbie" fails to address how women of color are affected in different ways than white women as a result of their intersecting identities, and the movie should share much stronger feminist, racial, and disability messages. Nevertheless, "Barbie" does a relatively good job of addressing certain societal issues and has the important effect of making people feel seen, represented, and respected. Further, it brings very important mental health struggles into discussion.

Depression, death, and questioning one’s life purpose are often things that are confined to very private, emotional discussions. These are not openly discussed topics, especially for women of color, like Gloria, who are expected to conceal their emotions, work through their struggles without assistance, and are often not supported.

Another benefit of the release of "Barbie" is its effect on the social and employment mobility of women. According to the Blue Banner, a survey

by Resume Builder showed that 53% of viewers believe that "Barbie" has improved their view of women in the workplace. Others stated how Barbie shed awareness on patriarchal influences in the workplace. While "Barbie" had the potential to share stronger messages, at the very least it provided a safe space for people, regardless their race or gender, to wear pink, potentially cry at some sentimental mother-daughter moments, and form a community of kindness, support, and friendship.

Emily Gordon ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at emily.gordon@wustl. edu.

19

Washington University Political Review

The Need for Speed Alan Knight

C

ars, planes, and boats have one thing in common — they all fall short as efficient transportation systems capable of moving millions across the country and between major metropolitan areas. The solution? Trains.

High-speed rail transportation can transform the way Americans travel well into the future, all while providing a cheaper and more environmentally friendly option to the traditional family road trip.

With the rise in gasoline costs and smog in some major cities, leaving 137 million Americans with unhealthy levels of air pollution, we need a fundamental change to improve our overall livelihoods while also providing a more comfortable and efficient way of doing so.

Despite this, America’s current passenger rail system is unable to provide this transition.

Amtrak, the United States’ only major passenger rail service, has suffered from a multitude of issues related to its passenger rail services.

Amtrak doesn’t own any of the tracks that it uses (except for a stretch of tracks in the Northeast corridor, which has its own set of problems). As a result, Amtrak must pay freight lines for the use of their track and must also yield to oncoming freight trains that are using the line at the same time. This is a far cry from any developed European country, many of which have robust high-speed rail systems. Rail lines in Europe tend to be dedicated to passenger service and are often very well maintained — many rail lines are capable of supporting high-speed service.

Constant maintenance and oversight prevent many of the issues — like work stoppages and freight backups — that plague rail transportation in the U.S. Furthermore, Europe’s inter-city rail transportation, exemplified by Germany’s Deutsche Bahn, stands out as a highly cost-effective and efficient medium of transportation. Plans are underway to expand Europe’s rail transportation network to encompass 230 metropolitan areas, providing 60% of Europeans with direct access to high-speed rail services. Meanwhile, in the U.S., a four-hour delay on an Amtrak train from St. Louis to Chicago is the norm. In fact,

20

the Eurostar service from London to Paris covers the 300-mile journey in less than two hours.

The journey from St. Louis to Chicago, also 300 miles, can be up to a staggering nine hours after factoring for delays.

Most recently, President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act can potentially supply up to $100 billion in railway funding. Despite this, however, most of the funding is going towards improving the already deteriorating

While Amtrak does have a high-speed intercity rail line from New York City to D.C. named Acela, real-world speeds only get up to 75mph, mainly due to old tracks and outdated signaling systems.

Many Americans are eager to see the realization of high-speed rail sooner rather than later.

Many Americans are eager to see the realization of high-speed rail sooner rather than later.

A 2015 survey conducted by TechnoMetrica for the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) showed that 63% of respondents said they would use high-speed rail if available. That number jumps to 67% when informed of the various cost and time-saving benefits of highspeed rail. Congestion of U.S. highways costs an average of $130 billion a year in lost productivity, with this number only expected to grow as more drivers hit the roads. A 2012 study, also by the APTA, showed that over 40 years, highspeed rail services can generate a net benefit of around $660 million annually with $26.4 billion in economic benefits over the next four decades.

While the federal government has been taking steps in the right direction, the effects of rail investment have yet to be seen. The Obama administration helped fund $2.4 billion in high-speed rail projects in California, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Florida. However, considering that it has been 14 years since the funding was appropriated, most of the projects were simply a lost cause — California attempted an inter-city high-speed rail system from LA to San Francisco, but the project quickly soared through its budget and left the state begging for more.

Despite some Republicans blocking infrastructure bills containing funding for railways, former President Trump at least attempted to fund improvements in America’s rail system.

Early in his presidency, Trump crossed historical party lines and acknowledged that the initial costs of a project would eventually pay itself off.

U.S. rail system, let alone high-speed rail.

However, despite setbacks to nationally funded rail, Florida's Brightline passenger rail service showcases an efficient transportation system. Privately funded, Brightline operates from Orlando to Miami with modern conventional trains. Utilizing dedicated passenger rail tracks, Brightline can reach speeds of up to 125mph and runs consistently, with the 260-mile trip taking 3.5 hours, significantly faster than Amtrak.

Despite its $6 billion cost and four-year completion time, Brightline offers insight into a successful inter-city rail system, though replicating it in other locations is an improbable task.

Unless a definitive plan can be figured out by both sides of the political spectrum, as well as key players in the U.S. railway industry, a U.S. Eurostar is still an unfortunate lightyear away.

Alan Knight ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at a.z.knight@wustl. edu.

MOBILITY

Artwork by Ceci Gutierrez Torreseptien

21

Washington University Political Review

To the Committee on Admissions Jack Samet

L

ast summer, the Supreme Court held in two companion cases brought against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina by Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action lobbying group. This group argued that the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions have forced colleges and universities to make fundamental changes to the mechanisms they use to create racially diverse classes, which remains a valid and necessary educational interest. Washington University responded to the Court’s decision by adding an optional supplement to its application for the Class of 2028, which includes questions tackling topics such as communities and life experiences. The Court explicitly stated in its decision that race could be considered in college admissions by means of essays and student writing samples.

The overruling of race-based affirmative action in college admissions was a commendable decision. Morally, affirmative action failed because it gave credence to the notion that one’s worthiness in attending an elite academic institution, such as Harvard, was intrinsically tied to the color of their skin. Legally, affirmative action blatantly violated the Constitution because of its failure to guarantee that no racial discrimination would ever occur in the college admissions process, and because it justified discriminating against some races by advantaging others. As the evidence has shown, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs concretely discriminated against Asian applicants. From a constitutional standpoint, it was irrelevant if Black and Latino applicants benefitted from such programs; because the Equal Protection Clause does not tolerate any sliver of racial discrimination, the Court was correct in striking down race-based affirmative action in its entirety because it created situations which allowed racial stereotypes about Asian applicants to seep into and influence the decision-making process, which is not only racist but deliberately repudiates

22

everything the Fourteenth Amendment stands for.

While ending race-based affirmative action was a necessary step in making the admissions process fairer, it is not an end-all-be-all solution.

Indeed, there is one measure every college and university can take to level the playing field for all applicants: eliminating the use of legacy preferences. Legacy preferences grant certain applicants advantages based on factors that are out of their control, which ultimately prevents the college admission process from reaching its full potential in being as fair as possible.

There is one easy measure every college and university can take to level the playing field for all applicants: eliminating the use of legacy preferences.

Before we talk about legacy preferences, we must briefly discuss the role that standardized test scores have played in college admissions.

While conventional wisdom suggests that SAT or ACT scores are an indicator of one’s ability to succeed in college, the tides have now shifted. Standardized test scores are less of a reflection of an applicant’s academic ability and more of an indicator of their financial standing.

Applicants from a wealthier socioeconomic class can afford private tutoring and other resources that will help them score high, which ultimately benefits them in the admissions process. Most colleges and universities, although motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic instead of these realities, enacted test-optional policies, which have somewhat leveled the playing field by opening doors for applicants with fewer means. The University of California system even

went a step further, instituting a test-blind policy across its nine campuses, which will curb the influence of money in the admissions process to an arguably greater extent than test-optional policies ever will.

Why the talk about eliminating test scores in the admission process? If sentiments can shift so rapidly against test scores because of how they perpetuate socioeconomic inequality, then so can the tides around legacy preferences, which do the same thing, and arguably to a greater degree. Giving an advantage to an applicant based on whether their parent attended the same institution, and then deducing the likelihood of the student or their family donating large sums of money to the school, could not be more morally bankrupt. By keeping these preferences intact, institutions demonstrate that they are willing to prioritize money over merits when it serves their interests. This is an unacceptable sentiment on all grounds. If institutions truly aim to make their admission processes fairer, eliminating such preferences would have been the first step they took, especially considering that money can easily be found in other places.

Legacy preferences also disproportionately advantage wealthy white applicants, a reality that invites subsequent litigation. If Students for Fair Admissions can successfully argue that the consideration of race in college admissions violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it employs racial discrimination, they can easily employ the same logic with respect to legacy preferences. Democrats have also introduced legislation in Congress to ban legacy preferences nationwide, and the introduction of such legislation should serve as an indicator of just how unpopular these preferences are.

If we want to make the college admission process fairer, let’s act boldly and end legacy preferences once and for all. It’s about time.

Jack Samet ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jack.samet@wustl. edu.

MOBILITY

FRAUD: When an Election Was "STOLEN" Evan Hunt

S

urveillance footage of ballots being illegally dropped into drop boxes, significant discrepancies in absentee versus other types of voting methods in elections, and multiple elections being ordered by a judge to be rerun. This is the nightmare scenario many opponents of absentee voting have, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, is a microcosm for what will happen.

Mobility is a significant issue with voting accessibility, as many voters cannot get to the polls without assistance. Some people experience transportation issues, while others are physically constricted from going to the polling place.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the expansion of absentee voting across the country and saw many of the votes in 2020 being cast by mail, which arguably constituted the most controversial element of the 2020 election. Absentee ballots became controversial in the aftermath of former President Donald Trump's defeat, with Trump asserting that mail-in ballots in states like West Virginia were being "sold." This was about a postal worker who altered people's registration on ballots in the state's presidential primary earlier that year. In that incident, the perpetrator was caught, and the alteration never held up.

On the other hand, Bridgeport tells a different tale. The city of 150,000 people is reliably Democratic on every level of government, but its mayoral contest this year was unusually close between Democratic incumbent Joe Ganim and Independent challenger John Gomes. Ganim was the mayor at the beginning of the century until he was arrested and charged with 16 counts of various crimes such as racketeering and extortion, resulting in a nine-year sentence and a $300,000 fine. After his sentence, Ganim worked in his family's business of consulting with white-collar criminals on how to get their sentences reduced and deal with prison life. Ganim ran for mayor after serving his sentence and won, holding the position since 2015. Ganim’s term has seen improvements to city infrastructure and healthcare facilities but

at the expense of a significant uptick in corruption (primarily due to his presence).

In 2023, Democrat and luxury real estate broker John Gomes challenged the incumbent for an eighth term. Once the Democratic primary was held, Ganim won in large part from a significant lead in absentee ballots. Gomes ran as an Independent in the general election, and the contest appeared to lean towards Gomes until a large influx of absentee votes. This made Ganim win by a margin just shy of 2%. But the election was already obsolete. Before the election, a judge ordered the Democratic primary to be re-conducted if Ganim won as there was sufficient evidence the primary was not conducted freely or fairly. Among other things were videos of poll workers stuffing mailboxes with absentee votes, with 15 instances recorded on tape.

This is why a new primary will be occurring for the Bridgeport mayoralty.

Among other things were videos of poll workers stuffing mailboxes with absentee votes, with 15 instances of ballot boxes being stuffed being recorded.

This has reignited controversy over how elections are conducted, leading to more calls for absentee voting rules and regulations. This electoral fraud occurred despite Connecticut Law strictly prohibiting absentee ballots being handled by anyone other than the person with the ballot, and this includes election employees. Besides this rule, Connecticut is known for having stringent election laws including the payment for the sole purpose of distributing absentee ballots being forbidden. While this was a concrete example of voter tampering,

it was an incident for a lower-tier municipal election. Furthermore, the fraud was caught, and the people who were behind the fraud are starting to be held accountable. It may be tough to go after Ganim himself as he has friends on the municipal courts, but this will lead to more cleanup of corruption in Bridgeport. It is also another example of voting irregularities consistently being caught.

In 2020, Trump lambasted a report saying nine military ballots were chucked in the trash in a Pennsylvania county. However, the County's election director caught it, and the votes were identified and counted. Mobility is a severe hindrance to many voters, and absentee voting can be the only way of getting their voices heard.

Some proposals on mobility have centered on bringing polling locations to areas with many immobile voters like senior care and rehabilitation centers. Other proposals have called for more restrictions on absentee voting, and eliminating many excuses for absentee ballot including students being away for college. Other common mechanisms for absentee voting are also coming under light, including in California, where people are allowed to handle and drop off a person's ballot if they are entrusted by that voter. This phenomenon of “ballot harvesting” has become controversial, and brought in another vector of people handling others' ballots. Bridgeport may help ban this practice altogether and only allow the voter themself to drop off their ballot barring special circumstances.

As for Bridgeport, the primary will be closely watched as Ganim hopes to hold on.

Evan Hunt ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at e.m.hunt@wustl.edu.

23

Washington University Political Review

Is Education the Universal Escape From Poverty?

Da'juantay Wynter

I

rushed into the bathroom — my only privacy from my family of six in our tiny two-bedroom apartment. I unwrapped the package and fell in love with the shirt's forest green color. Ecstatically, I buttoned up my new Popeyes manager shirt and looked in the mirror. I expected to see myself smiling and proud, but that’s not the reflection I saw. I turned off the light and crumbled onto the cold floor. At 17-years-old, I had been promoted to manager, allowing me to work fewer hours, receive higher pay, and gain leadership experience: it should have been a sigh of relief, but it was not what I had imagined for myself.

In my junior year of high school, I shouldered the weight of a full-time job at Popeyes, a commitment born out of necessity to support my family through the pandemic. Each day unfolded against the backdrop of a makeshift classroom — my mattress on the floor, closely alongside those of my three siblings. Our small shared bedroom echoed with the snores of my older brother and the noise of my younger sister's Zoom classes. I remember the joy I had when I had saved up enough money to purchase AirPods. Finally, I could drown out the loud background noise to make life a bit more manageable. After class, I would study, do homework or hop on a Facetime call with my friends before heading to Popeyes for my evening shift from 4 to 11 p.m. On weekends or during school breaks, I would often work double shifts; I really loved the overtime pay. I was promoted to manager in the spring of my junior year — a sense of accomplishment with its own set of complexities and reflections on the unexpected turns of life.

While the opportunity to support my family felt like the most important thing I could do at the moment, it diverged significantly from the vision I had for myself when I was younger. As I sat on the floor, my eleven-year-old self flashed before me — eyes gleaming, a wide grin, brimming with ambition. My younger self admired my tri-fold goal board adorned with aspirations of being a part of student government, serving

24

my community, and a top ten GPA. I was determined to manifest these dreams, believing that they would serve as my direct ticket out of poverty. However, the reflection staring back at me in the mirror was not the college-bound top student I once envisioned; instead, I saw a Popeyes manager. The urge to scream welled up within me, but with my family just beyond the bathroom door, I swallowed my words. As I sat on the floor, I ran my fingers over the fabric of the shirt, acutely aware of all that had changed. The younger Da’juantay who proudly created that goal board could not have foreseen

College has proven to be a catalyst for profound transformations across various aspects of my life. the many struggles I would have to endure — from my mom's Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis to the responsibility of supporting my family, and the onset of a pandemic. Despite this, I came to the realization that the fierce ambition I held as a child to attend college still burned within my heart.

I picked myself back up off the floor and created a plan to quit my job at Popeyes.

The impulse to burst into the restaurant and slam my two-week notice on the desk pulsed within me, but I knew bills still needed to be paid and that fantasy would never see the light of day. So, I created a plan to work over 500 hours the summer before my senior year. That way I could quit my job right before senior year and dedicate myself to fulfilling my younger self's dream of attending college and breaking generational chains.

Reflecting on this period, I ponder the paradox that despite securing local and national scholarships to fuel my ambitions, the stark reality of living in poverty compelled me to

prioritize my job at Popeyes. It underscored the immense challenge of breaking free from the clutches of poverty. In my sophomore year of high school, I submitted my application for the Buck Scholarship, a regional award recognizing four students in Northern California, offering them a mentor, a $6,000 grant, and entry into a vibrant community with access to various resources. I was eager to apply for this program, and I can still hear the echo of the screams that rang throughout my apartment when I found out I was accepted into the program. My mentor, Julian, has impacted my life beyond measure and helped me realize that my goal of attending college was something feasible. Julian took me on my first plane ride to visit colleges in Washington and Oregon. Among the schools we visited was the University of Washington in Seattle (quite the coincidence,

Reflecting on this period, I ponder the paradox that despite securing local and national scholarships to fuel my ambitions, that stark reality of living in poverty compelled me to prioritize my job at Popeyes. It underscores the immense challenge of breaking free from the clutches of poverty. huh?). This trip proved to be remarkably transformative, illuminating the path to the life I aspire to lead. I understood the power of being in programs such as Buck Scholars, and I continued to search for them. Exploring national college prep programs such as LEDA, Thrive, and QuestBridge College Prep Scholars, I made sure to submit applications for all. However, the

MOBILITY only program that extended acceptance to me was Alexander Hamilton Scholars. AHS is a five year college prep program and persistence that selects about 30 high school juniors from across the country. This program has been a gamechanger for me, offering invaluable assets like a proficient college advisor, a supportive community of fellow scholars, and access to a plethora of resources. Lynell, our college counselor, played a pivotal role in guiding me through the college application process, and continues to be a steadfast support to me today.

Fast forward to the present, and I find myself in my sophomore year at Washington University in St. Louis, living a life that was once only a distant dream. I vividly recall the feeling of lying on my very first real bed when I moved into Myers hall, exclusively mine, with a tempurpedic mattress that undoubtedly set a high standard.

College has proven to be a catalyst for profound transformations across various aspects of my life. I lost 70 pounds, thanks to access to a healthier lifestyle and diet. I fulfilled another childhood dream of traveling and exploring places that were beyond my imagination. Some of the daily challenges rooted in poverty no longer plague me. While higher education proved effective in fostering social mobility for me, this isn't universally true for everyone, not even my own siblings.

For example, only almost 23% of Black Americans have college degrees and there are indications that this number may decline further, particularly in the wake of the recent Supreme Court case on Affirmative Action.

Furthermore, fewer than 1 in 13 children born into poverty in the United States will secure a high-income job in adulthood, with even bleaker odds for Black men at 1 in 40. I frequently ponder what enabled me to overcome these daunting odds. Each time, I arrive at the same conclusion: numerous factors paved my path, but undeniably, the primary reason I triumphed was because people invested in me. It was the elementary school teachers who instilled in me the belief that I can make a difference in the world, the mentors who guided me, and the programs that paved my way.

This often leads me to wonder what kinds of responsibilities I have to the communities in which I was raised. It’s a heavy burden to bear, especially as I come to recognize through this exceptional education that I am getting here at Wash U, that my personal success is not enough

to change the conditions that so many members of my community back home and across the country continue to face. This has ignited a fire in me to improve the public school system. I hope to be able to help eliminate the many systems of inequality and create a system where every child in America can receive a quality equitable education. Having experienced firsthand the transformative power of education, I recognize that my journey is both extraordinary and exceptionally rare.

the force of change requires collaborative effort.

The landscape of education in America is tumultuous, demanding the collective attention and commitment of all of us.

Dajuantay Wynter ‘26 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at d.t.wynter@wustl. edu

The United States public education system remains unjust for so many children, particularly those who are people of color, low-income, or LGBTQ+, due to the numerous inequities that afflict the system. A brief stroll through any Saint Louis Public School makes these issues glaringly evident. However, the existence of hundreds, if

It's a heavy budern to bear, especially as I come to recognize through this exceptional education that I am getting here at Wash U, that my personal success is not enough to change the conditions that so many members of my community back home and across the country continue to face. not thousands, of programs and nonprofits dedicated to combating these inequalities, — such as Hamilton Scholars, QuestBridge, LEDA, and Posse — do an incredible job assisting students from poverty attend college and have a better chance with upward social mobility. Still, it's crucial to acknowledge the limitations of these programs in terms of resources and outreach.

While impactful, these programs function as Band-Aids to a deeply wounded system.

Certainly, education holds the potential to act as a powerful mechanism for upward social mobility; however, this potential often goes unrealized due to how the system was created.

Unlocking this transformative power demands comprehensive policy reform at the local, state, and federal levels. While I stand as an individual,

25

Washington University Political Review

What British Tories Reveal About the GOP Romen Der Manuelian

F

or the last half decade, the British Conservative Party has been a populist party. In June of 2016, the British public voted for “Brexit,” causing the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Moderates in the Conservative, or the “Tory” Party, were mortified: they tend to favor good relations with Europe, as well as free trade policy. As such, moderate Prime Minister David Cameron resigned, citing that he’d be unable to carry out such a dramatic policy he didn’t believe in.

In the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, new Prime Minister Theresa May attempted to lead the British people through Brexit with a moderate approach. When that didn’t work for party hardliners, Boris Johnson became elevated to the top job in Britain. As a Brexit hardliner, Johnson’s strategy for the 2019 British election campaign centered around winning old, industrial towns in the North of England, similar to America’s Rust Belt of old steel and mining industry towns in the upper Midwest. Johnson won that election in a landslide, marking a major shift in the British Conservative Party from favoring neo-liberal economic and social policies to a populist, more right-wing direction.

Let’s pause for a second. The Republican Party used to be known for country club Republicans like Mitt Romney and John McCain who favored laissez-faire economics and talked more about tax cuts than tariffs. That changed in 2016 with the election of Donald Trump, who won by flipping industrial states in the Upper Midwest and turning the Republican Party in a more populist direction. The parallel is there: the right-ofcenter party in both countries made a shift to populism which won the following elections by appealing to traditionally left leaning industrial labor areas. These areas are often deeply religious and therefore socially conservative, yet liberal in their economic views as a result of deep seeded histories of organized labor.

Therefore, while a moderate libertarian economy-focused candidate would lose those areas, a socially conservative populist would be more likely to capture them.

26

This tension between moderates and populists came to a head just a month ago in Britain. The current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, strikes a balance between hardliners and moderates.

Elected to finish the Brexit transition, he’s been seen as a fairly conservative Prime Minister, albeit more polished than Boris Johnson’s Trumpian style. However, that’s started to change. In early November, Rishi Sunak announced a major change in his cabinet, where he fired right-wing Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who oversees British national security, including immigration policy. Moreover, he brought into his cabinet a new foreign secretary in a move that shocked pundits: former Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron, an Oxfordeducated establishment man of affluent background is seen as a symbol of the old school Tory party: polished, royalist, pro-European and centrist. This has sparked fears within the populist right-wing of the Tories that Sunak is ditching the faction of the party that elected him in favor the old party, with Braverman accusing Sunak of violating his promises to the British people to end mass migration, saying in her resignation letter “I trusted you.” Other rightwing parliamentarians have said that the best way for the Conservative Party to win the next election is by replacing their winning strategy in 2019. This comes at a time when the British Conservative Party is in a time of deep crisis: they are down nearly 20% in the polls. If that were the result, it would be one of the biggest landslides in British political history.

Crossing the pond again, we find a scenario for American Republicans that is both similar and different. The Populist wing of the Republican Party still has a firm foothold on the base, with Donald Trump far ahead of moderate Nikki Haley in primary polls. However, the most recent election results show that voters are rejecting current Republican messaging on important issues despite a somewhat unpopular Democratic incumbent president. This has been seen in Kentucky, Virginia, and Ohio.

It does feel like the politics of British and American conservative parties have similarities that can teach us lessons about the path forward. Going forward, I believe it is fair to expect these narratives to diverge. The broad Tory Party frustration with Johnson that eventually forced him out of office will lead to a gradual shift back towards country club-esque moderate conservative politics among British Tories within the next decade, already seen with the recent cabinet shuffle. In America, however, it’ll take more time. For now, the Republican Party is the party of Trump, and with him in 2024 and whoever he endorses in 2028 being the party nominee, the soul of the Republican Party has seemingly for the moment shifted in the hands of populists.

Romen Der Manuelian ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ewoodruff@ wustl.edu.

MOBILITY

Circular Migration: Good or Bad? Emily Woodruff

W

hat do a French businessman who travels to Spain for work each day, a farm laborer from Morocco who travels to Spain to work during the harvest season, and a woman from Sri Lanka who works as a nanny for a middle-class family in Spain all have in common? They are circular migrants.

The European Union defines circular migration as “a repetition of legal migration by the same person between two or more countries." In the modern era, increased communication and travel technology have led to an increase in circular migration patterns across the globe.

Reciprocally, host countries want to encourage circular migration because they reap many advantages from it. The phenomenon allows them to fill short-term positions, such as large construction projects or the harvest of crops.

Circular migrants can also fill jobs in the service sector, such as working as nannies and in elder care facilities, positions that European countries, especially, are finding harder to fill as more women become educated and go into professional careers. Migrants’ countries of origin profit from circular migration too. According to research from the Migration Policy Institute,

When I discussed this idea with my fellow WUPR members, they expressed shock about circular migration. They felt it was exploitative and they did not understand why migrants would keep returning to their home country instead of settling in their host country. To them, circular migration was racist and a way to exploit migrants’ labor without providing them citizenship benefits. At first, circular migration seemed transactional to me as well: a way for countries to take advantage of migrants’ labor while excluding them from achieving citizenship. However, after more research into the issue, I realized circular migration can have myriad positive impacts on migrants, host countries, and migrants’ countries of origin.

When I discussed this idea with my fellow WUPR members, they expressed shock about circular migration. They felt it was exploitative.

Circular migration provides many benefits for migrants. Since they are working in higher-income countries, they receive higher wages than they would at home. This pattern means their money has more spending power when they return to their countries of origin. Circular migration also allows migrants and their families to maintain their culture, language, and other homeland associations. Many people, migrants included, consider these characteristics important pieces of themselves, and circular migration allows migrants to maintain their sense of identity and cultural pride. In addition, while working abroad, some migrants may attain specialized skills that they can use to obtain better jobs when they return to their home countries.

circular migration can reduce "brain drain" from migrants’ countries of origin. Brain drain refers to the pattern of educated and high-achieving people moving to other countries for better economic opportunities. Research has found that circular migrants are typically more driven and many of them have significant levels of education, but their countries do not have jobs for them, which is why they must take jobs in the service sector for which they are overqualified.

Since migrants participating in circular migration return to their home countries regularly and do not permanently move their families to new countries, brain drain does not occur on such a large scale as it did before circular migration became common. Many migrants involved in circular migration send home substantial amounts of money to their families in their home countries. This money, or remittances, also aids the migrants’ countries. Researchers found that since 2017, “remittances have been the largest source of external finance flows to low-and

middle-income countries.” The paychecks of circular migrants are driving the economies of many developing countries. Circular migration also reduces the unemployment rate in these countries since there are fewer workers seeking jobs in-country. Additionally, while working abroad migrants acquire skills and knowledge that they can bring back to their countries of origin, which assists these countries.

Is circular migration good or bad? Research has found benefits for migrants, host countries, and migrants’ home countries, although much of this data has emphasized that circular migration has the possibility of becoming extremely exploitative, as what happened with massive migrant worker mistreatment in Qatar for the 2022 World Cup. Nevertheless, stronger governance and labor protection laws can overcome this problem and provide safe work environments for circular migrants. The optimal situation is for people to be able to find good jobs in their home countries because many migrants experience problems related to being away from their families for so long, and the psychological toll of being isolated in their host countries.

Many of them also struggle with reintegration into their home countries’ labor markets when they return. Moreover, circular migration allows host countries to gain the advantages of migrants’ labor, while side-stepping claims that they are “letting in too many migrants.” Europe’s economy desperately needs migrants to fill positions, but when immigration to a country increases, it often leads to the emergence of right-wing parties. Circular migration dampens the possible negative political effect of migration for politicians while allowing them to profit from migrants’ labor. The ability to provide for their families, though, is a huge benefit for many circular migrants, and one that should not be taken away.

Emily Woodruff ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ewoodruff@wustl.

27

Washington University Political Review

Old Habits Die Hard in Haiti Toby Zimmerman

S

ince Haiti’s independence from France in 1804, the United States has made a concerted effort to control politics and economics in Haiti to promote American interests in the Caribbean. Following the Haitian Revolution for independence, many southerners feared that slaves in America would take inspiration from the forceful expulsion of French colonialists. Slaveholders sought to prevent ideas of rebellion from crossing the Caribbean Sea, advocating for a trade embargo while the U.S. did not formally recognize Haitian independence for a further 60 years. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. sought to manipulate Haitian affairs to create an outpost in the West Indies, leveraging its role as Haiti’s primary trade partner.

As the Haitian economy suffered under pressure from France, Germany and the United States, political instability boiled up, resulting in seven coups that rocked the island nation between 1911 and 1915. In the United States, racist and imperialist sentiments, combined with a desire to recoup Haiti’s debt, resulted in growing domestic pressure to intervene.

Despite leaving behind a highly centralized social and political structure, the legacy of the 1915 occupation was a racist, violent, and largely unsuccessful intervention that failed to prevent political and economic instability in the years following.

When a pro-American president was deposed in 1915, President Woodrow Wilson ordered U.S. marines to occupy the capital, Port-auPrince, and American corporations raced to take over the banks and railroads of Haiti to siphon

28

wealth from its languishing economy. Under the American occupation, 40% of Haiti’s GDP was redirected to repay French and American banks, and although the U.S. established several important political institutions and infrastructure projects, many of them were built on the back of an abusive labor system of forcibly recruited Haitian workers. Although it produced a highly centralized social and political structure, the legacy of the 1915 occupation was a racist, violent, and largely unsuccessful intervention that failed to prevent political and economic instability in the years following the American’s withdrawal in 1934.

Despite this, when American troops arrived on Haitian shores in 1994, they were greeted with applause by the hopeful citizens of Port-auPrince. Four years earlier, a leftist priest named Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president in the first fully democratic election in Haitian history. As an anti-establishment candidate that drew support from the slums in Port-auPrince, Aristide had powerful enemies among Haiti’s elite in the early days of his campaign.

In 1990, before Aristide even took office, allies of François Duvalier, Haiti’s despotic president of the last 33 years, tried to overthrow him in a military coup. Although the first attempt was unsuccessful due to his popularity within Haiti’s slums, Aristide was deposed in a second coup just a year later, to be replaced with a tyrannical military junta that slaughtered thousands of Aristide’s supporters. The situation grew so dire that American President Bill Clinton was finally persuaded to intervene, and Operation Uphold Democracy sent nearly 25,000 troops to the island of 13 million.

Aristide was restored to power but was beholden to numerous stringent UN requirements in return for military support. Aristide was forced to reinstate many Duvalier allies into the government and adopt a strict “Structural Readjustment” economic policy common to many UN peacekeeping missions at the time.

The program transformed Haiti into one of the most open economies in the world, which devastated domestic business and producers, especially farmers who could not compete with cheaper American goods. Aristide abolished the

army in favor of a National Police Force drafted from his supporters in poor areas of the capital, and became increasingly paranoid, authoritarian, and corrupt as his fears of ouster grew.

Aristide’s mismanagement and the Structural Readjustment program had devastating and long-lasting effects on the Haitian economy, which never recovered to its earlier heights.

Operation Uphold Democracy officially ended in 1995 when the remaining American forces withdrew, leaving Aristide in a precarious position. Thus, the second American occupation of Haiti was no more successful than the first, failing to live up to its mission of maintaining democratic power in Haiti or preventing political turmoil and unrest.

Due to the suffering economy and accusations of corruption, Aristide’s popularity waned, and by 2004, he was no longer popular enough to

Thus, the second American occupation of Haiti was no more successful than the first, failing to live up to its mission of maintaining the democratic transition of power in Haiti or prevent political turmoil and unrest. prevent a coalition of business elites and military officers from removing him from power.

This time, a joint UN peacekeeping mission was deployed, first using French and American troops that were later replaced with a multinational peacekeeping force. Spearheaded by the Brazilian Army, The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (known by the French acronym MINUSTAH) was able to establish relatively fair elections by 2006, but remained in the country amid controversy and conflict for another 15 years. During their time, MINUSTAH was

MOBILITY plagued with accusations of sexual abuse, extrajudicial killing, corruption, and other crimes. UN soldiers fathered thousands of children with Haitian mothers, many of whom were raped and others who were compensated with the price of a single meal when the soldiers were repatriated. Additionally, an investigation traced a devastating cholera outbreak that killed tens of thousands of Haitians to a UN field base housing Nepali soldiers, who had been dumping wastewater into Haiti’s largest river, which acts as a water source for millions. The UN has been accused of trying to obscure the source of the outbreak that has sickened almost one million Haitians and has still not admitted full responsibility two decades later. As late as 2014, a UN auditor reported that a quarter of UN sites continued the practice of dumping waste in public canals some four years after the outbreak began.

In 2021, four years after UN troops left Haiti, President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated and replaced by Prime Minister Ariel Henry. Since his killing, conditions in Haiti have devolved into one of the world’s worst humanitarian and political crises. There has been no functional elected government and the last of Haiti’s parliamentary representatives ended their terms last year, with Henry failing to hold the elections he promised. Gangs have risen up to fill the power vacuum left by the lack of a central government, and have overrun the capital, controlling as much as 95% of Port-au-Prince and its infrastructure. Organized crime, massacres, and thousands of killings have been carried out

by Haiti’s 200 gangs, which heavily outnumber and outgun the meager National Police Force.

One group of gangs, known as the G9, commandeered the main fuel port in the capital in 2021, leaving millions without power or fuel needed to receive deliveries of fresh water. During this time, cholera returned with a vengeance, and the government failed to control gang violence or other national crises. In October 2022, Ariel Henry, who now rules by decree without a parliament or effective judiciary, called for foreign military intervention to regain control of the country. However, Henry has refused to hold elections and it is unclear how popular he is among Haitians, many of whom do not support international intervention due to its troubled history.

Regardless, in October 2023, the United Nations Security Council once again approved

an armed international force to reestablish control of Haiti’s capital. The initiative, which is funded primarily by the U.S., would send 1,000 police officers and soldiers, mainly from Kenya, to support the Haitian National Police. Across three previous examples of foreign intervention in Haiti, the U.S. has clearly not learned from its failure to instill lasting and meaningful stability. However, it has learned, beginning with the 2004 UN peacekeeping mission, to outsource as much of the dirty work as possible.

Despite these bad memories, many Haitians find the realities of everyday life so appalling that they see no other option but to turn their gaze outwards looking for salvation.

Kenya has participated in several UN interventions in Namibia, Kosovo, Tigray, and Somalia, trading the costly and high-risk task of deploying soldiers for political capital. By establishing itself as a reliable ally for UN nations, Kenya can try to leverage these alliances for favorable economic conditions. Additionally, Kenyan police will receive specialized training, equipment, and UN pensions that will contribute significantly to the Kenyan economy and security forces.

Kenya’s high court announced on November 9 that it will not deploy troops until it has received all the funding and training promised under the UNSEC initiative, but it also reaffirmed its commitment to helping the ailing Haitian people.

For the United States, this outsourced intervention provides an opportunity to further western interests in democracy and security without risking controversy or American lives.

remains unclear. The Kenyan police also have a blemished human rights record, including accusations of shooting protesters during COVID-19 lockdowns, and do not speak Creole or French, so it is unclear how effectively they can coordinate with local forces on the ground. Kenyan officers are also not trained for urban warfare and have no experience fighting gangs like the ones that control nearly all of Port-au-Prince.

Foreign troops have occupied Haiti for 41 of the last 108 years, and despite billions of dollars in humanitarian aid, military equipment and economic support, these efforts have failed spectacularly to stabilize and rejuvenate Haiti.

Considering the dysfunction of Haiti’s government, health services, and security forces, the squalid conditions left in the wake of the 2010 earthquake, and the ensuing cholera outbreak, it is difficult to imagine the underprepared Kenyan police faring much better. The United States and other western countries have been reluctant to commit significant resources, funding, or personnel to Haiti, leaving behind an unpredictable and multinational peacekeeping force reminiscent of the disastrous 2004 mission. Despite this checkered past, many Haitians find the realities of everyday life so appalling that they see no other option but to look outward for salvation.

Toby Zimmerman ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at t.zimmerman@ wustl.edu.

It is difficult to predict how effective a Kenyan intervention in Haiti will be, but numerous groups in Haiti, Kenya, and the international stage have raised concerns. Many Haitians are resistant to the idea of foreign intervention, but a large contingent have grown too desperate to see another option, so support for the mission

29

Washington University Political Review

QAnon Shaman, Libertarian Congressman?

Eric Zimmerman

A

fter storming the Capitol on January 6, the “QAnon Shaman” aims to return to our government center — this time as a congressman. Identifying himself as Jacob Angeli-Chansley, he filed a candidate statement of interest to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office as a Libertarian. Chansley (his legal last name) plans to run for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, a seat currently held

by Republican Debbie Lesko, who will not seek re-election and leaves office in January 2025.

QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory movement centered on the posts of anonymous 4chan user “Q.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, QAnon believes in a secretive ‘deep state’ of “Satan-worshiping pedophiles who control the world and run a global sex-trafficking ring.” Trump was supposed to expose this during “the Storm,” a fantasized upheaval where deep state leaders would be put on trial and subsequently executed. Of course, when Trump lost the 2020 election, QAnon believed it was stolen from him by deep state leaders, leading QAnon to join the storming of the Capitol.

This is the world in which Chansley became a prominent figurehead. Chansley earned his “QAnon Shaman” nickname due to his “shamanic” attire (the infamous viking-esque fur headdress, horns, face paint, etc.) he wore to various protests initiated or interrupted by QAnon believers. His outlandish appearance and rambunctious behavior on January 6 turned him into an immediately noticeable figure in its aftermath.

Chansley was arrested on federal charges on January 9, 2021 and kept in jail until his November 2021 trial, when he was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. During his trial, prosecutors argued Chansley showed signs of drug abuse and mental illness, claiming “Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality,” according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CNN

30

reported that, before the sentencing, Chansley supposedly took complete ownership of his wrongdoings, telling Judge Royce Lamberth, “The hardest part about this is to know that I’m to blame. To have to look in the mirror and know, you really messed up.” Chansley also quoted The Shawshank Redemption in the hopes of bolstering his case.

specifies that, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress… under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress… to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Chansley only served 27 months of his sentence before being transferred to a halfway house in Phoenix. He has since denounced QAnon. Now, repositioned as a Libertarian, Chansley hopes to return to the Capitol chambers legally.

However, this only applies to politicians who previously took the oath of office. The “insurrection or rebellion” statement cannot apply to Chansley since he never held political office. Thus, Chansley is exempt from the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, since the Arizona congressional seat is federal office and the Constitution does not mention prohibition of felons from federal office, felons like Chansley are allowed to run for Congress. Interestingly, the Arizona state constitution also mentions nothing about felons running for office, so Chansley would also be allowed to run for local office. Ultimately, Chansley cannot be constitutionally prohibited from a congressional seat.

Ultimately, Chansley cannot be constitutionally prohibited from a congressional seat.

Frankly, Chansley has no chance of victory given his past and the fact that Libertarian candidates are doomed under the two-party system.

Nevertheless, his candidacy poses compelling questions about American governance. Should Chansley be disqualified from running? From a morality standpoint, the issue is quite subjective. Under American altruism, we should allow Chansley to demonstrate self-improvement and stability to Arizona voters. Barring him from doing so arguably goes against American principles like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and freedom of (peaceful) expression. Also, since January 6, he has not repeated any violent, radical acts. Granted, he has been imprisoned for most of this time, but maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, not because his past actions put him in our good graces, but because prohibiting him from running would be arguably un-American.

The Constitution also supports his candidacy. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Thus, is it even worth considering a federal court case against Chansley’s candidacy?

Again, the Constitution allows Chansley to run, so the courts would have no grounds. Would it be worth a borderline impossible-to-pass amendment (given political divisiveness and larger priorities in the House) just to make an example out of Chansley, especially given his microscopic chances of winning? While the concept of Chansley in Congress is repulsive or comical to some, these are important questions to consider. As farcical as it seems, he should be given the chance.

Eric Zimmerman ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at e.j.zimmerman@ wustl.edu.

NATIONAL

Polarization Puts the U.S. Military at Risk Weldon Smith

T

he United States military is arguably the most formidable in the world, utilizing an $817 billion budget and employing almost 1.3 million active service members. Why then, has a lone U.S. Senator been so detrimental to the day-to-day workings of the armed forces? Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is the senior U.S. Senator from Alabama currently serving his first term in Congress. Although not a veteran himself, Tuberville has been quoted saying “there is no one more military than me” and has been appointed to serve on the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committee during his time in the Senate.

Notably, Tuberville is staunchly opposed to abortion and has been very vocal about his distaste for Pentagon policies that allow leave and paid expenses for personnel who are unable to get an abortion in the state they are stationed in. In February, he began to block military personnel moves that required Senate confirmation in protest of these policies. These confirmations ensure that the high ranks of the U.S. military are properly staffed, as many of these confirmations are for personnel promotions that allow nominees to take the spots of officers who have retired, or simply be appointed to new command posts. Confirming each person individually would take 2–3 days, time that might be better spent arguing other political issues, so the Senate historically confirms the nominations in batches by unanimous consent, a procedure that does not require debates or voting. By objecting each time nominations are brought up, Tuberville ensures there is no unanimous consent, stalling the process. This issue has been exacerbated by Democrats, who have avoided confirming top leaders individually, both due to the lengthy nature of the process and because they want to avoid setting the precedent that Tuberville’s actions constitute an acceptable form of protest.

Although Tuberville has allies within his party, he has also drawn the ire of some congressional Republicans including Lindsey Graham (R-SC),

Todd Young (R-IN), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), all of whom have been outspoken against the hold, and have repeatedly tried to convince Tuberville to change his mind. Nevertheless, Republicans have signed petitions forcing Democrats to hold votes on five key military personnel to fill positions on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high offices, all of which have easily passed and were necessary to ensure readiness within the armed forces. After all, these checks and balances are built into the American bureaucracy and undergird America’s success as a democratic state.

Crucially, the president’s role as Commander in Chief and the Senate’s capacity to confirm appointments ensure that the military does not become an entity separate from the state, a divide that has at times led to military coups.

This symbiotic relationship keeps Congress accountable for the military, with its responsibility for the creation of budgets, rules, and performance targets.

It is worth considering the potential dangers that domestic polarization will have on the armed forces and their ability to operate in inevitably changing circumstances

his policy fight on the ideologically neutral military, rather than holding up Biden’s administrative nominations, as senators more typically do.

It is worth noting that the Democrat-led Senate rules committee recently voted 9–7 on a temporary rule that would allow the Senate to confirm batches of nominations with a simple majority vote. However, the rule must get 60 votes on the floor to go into effect, a feat that seems unlikely given limited Republican support.

If the U.S. entered a war tomorrow, Tuberville would hopefully recognize the broader significance of his actions and back down from his hold. In any case, his actions make clear the power individual senators can have given unique Senate rules, particularly over the U.S. armed forces. Many see China and the Indo-Pacific as the next potential flashpoint and threat to the U.S. military, and with the threat of escalation on the horizon, it is worth considering the potential dangers that domestic polarization will have on the armed forces and their ability to operate in inevitably changing circumstances. When any delay could mean compromising national security, Tommy Tuberville and America at large need to recognize that the military should be a unifying force, not a source of division, and that the mess of partisan politics is best kept separate from the United States Armed Forces.

Weldon Smith ‘27 in the College of Arts & Sciences can be reached at s.weldon@wustl.edu.

Tuberville’s one-man hold on confirmations has exposed the consequences of disrupting this relationship. The U.S. military is structured with strict command chains, and when they are interrupted, it becomes difficult to go about business in a normal way, weakening the combat readiness of U.S. forces. Tuberville says his hold will only be lifted when the Pentagon’s abortion policies are changed, something that looks highly unlikely within the near future.

Many have criticized Tuberville for taking out

31

Have a story to tell?

WUPR invites you to write or design in our next issue.

To get involved, visit wupr.org/contribute