NUPR Fall 2018

NEP A C Y GARR

A

? l e a r h t o M Is t e k r a M

Sexual Violence in America: Political Controversy or Public Health Crisis?

JARED HIRSCHFIELD

A Tribute to Professor Kimberly Jones ELENA KURAN

Letter from the Editor & the President Dear Reader, It has been two years since a historic election that shook American democracy to its core. Much of America, ourselves included, have felt as if the past two years have been reeling–a constant onslaught of unprecedented headlines that seem to move from bad to worse.

The last four months have been no exception to this trend, with the passing of our faculty advisor, Professor Kimberly Jones, especially affecting our organization and university community. However, it is during these periods of uncertainty and grief that we are reminded of the importance of, as well as our gratitude for, platforms such as the Political Review.

Since our freshman year, the Political Review has been a resource unlike any other; indeed it remains Northeastern’s premier undergraduate political magazine. A “hidden gem” we are always trying to share with others, the Political Review helps students from all years and majors come together and make sense of the world, through meaningful discussion, thoughtful writing, and a genuine passion for learning. We hope that the perspectives and insights in this edition serve as a snapshot of our country’s current political landscape, as well as re-frame issues that have been particularly pertinent during our work. This edition is particularly special to me, Elena, as it is my first edition as Editor-in-Chief, and to me, Gabriel, as I guide an entirely new group of leaders in our organization through this amazing process.

We are deeply grateful to everyone who has had a hand in the creation and production of this magazine: our late faculty advisor, our editorial and executive boards, our writers, our club members, and former members, who continue to graciously offer guidance even after graduating.

It is with a hearty recognition of the past, and a great deal of hope for the future that we share our print magazine. Thank you for picking up this issue of the Northeastern University Political Review.

Sincerely, Elena Kuran, Editor-in-Chief Gabriel Morris, President

Meet the Team Executive Board

Mission Statement

Gabriel Morris President

The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated platform for students to publish essays and articles of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. The Political Review aspires to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse among interested individuals while promoting awareness of political issues in the campus community. The organization envisions itself as a place where students with a common interest in politics and world affairs may come together to discuss and develop their views and refine their opinions. The Political Review hopes to reflect the diversity of thought and spirit at Northeastern, including the dual ethic of academic and experiential education our school embodies.

Elena Kuran Editor-in-Chief Matthew Mahlan VP of Public Relations Reshma Rapeta Treasurer Alexandra Jacobs Secretary Vanessa Gregorchik Creative Director Ellie MacLean Digital Director

Editorial Board Claire McHugh Managing Editor Milton Posner Columns Editor Jillian Wrigley Columns Editor Garry Canepa Magazine Editor Chantal Cheung Magazine Editor Kamran Parsa Magazine Editor Veronica Cihlar Magazine Editor Jared Hirschfield Magazine Editor

For More Information Check out our website at nupoliticalreview.com Want to write for NUPR? Email us at nupoliticalreview@gmail.com Magazines printed by Puritan Capital

National

Featured

6

20

Is the Market Moral?

Garry Canepa

22

Sexual Violence in America: Political Controversy or Public Health Crisis?

Jared Hirschfield

32

A Tribute to Professor Kimberly Jones Elena Kuran

8 11

Understanding Recent Legislative Responses to the Opioid Crisis Leah Butz On Kavanaugh: A Conversation with Katia Santiago-Taylor of BARCC Ingrid Angulo Attempts to Quell a Blue Wave: Voter Suppression in the 2018 Midterms Claire McHugh

Columns

Global

24

The Road to a Fairer Society Garry Canepa

16

Challenges to Democracy: Rewriting Japan’s Article 9 Rintaro Nishimura

27

The Battle of Hodeidah and the World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis John Roarty

18

Fascism's Mainstream Resurgence in Brazil Jillian Wrigley

30

Peremptory Challenges: A Barrier to Justice Beza Zenebe

National

Understanding Recent Legislative Responses to the Opioid Crisis LEAH BUTZ / LINGUISTICS & ENGLISH 2020

T

he summer of 2018 saw a flurry of legislative efforts to curb the opioid epidemic that reached a record high of 72,000 victims in 2017.[1] On August 16th, 2018, President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to bring a “major lawsuit” to opioid-producing drug companies.[2] On August 22nd, Sessions announced a “warning” to opioid distributors, black market dealers and licensed pharmacists alike.[3] This continued the trend of government officials calling to change how easily Americans can acquire narcotics. Most of this legislative effort has been aimed at reducing, or even halting, the prescription of narcotics to the general population. However, the question remains as to whether prescription monitoring is the best way to fight this epidemic. A more effective use of government money would be the creation of programs to assist affected families, communities, and individuals, rather than punishing suppliers.

Bills such as the Alternatives to Opioids Prescribing Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 18th, 2018, would provide incentive payments to hospitals that limit their opioid prescription rates in favor of “alternatives.”[4] This legislation does not contain any reference to what these alternatives could include. A similar bill is the Expanding Oversight of Opioid Prescribing and Payment Act of 2018, which passed the House on June 19th of this year.

This bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to report to Congress any opioid-related spending by enrollees, perpetuating the myth that Medicare and Medicaid are to blame for the epidemic.[5] Medicare and Medicaid enrollees tend to be prescribed opioids more frequently, but they also tend to be sicker than those who have private health insurance due to the program’s leniency regarding pre-existing conditions.[6]

6

Fall 2018

Furthermore, twelve state Medicaid programs provide coverage for addiction treatment, which cannot be said for all private health insurance companies.[7] Legal, cultural, and political pressure to stop prescribing narcotics causes doctors to suggest different—but often equally dangerous—medications. One example is Depo-Medrol, a pain-killing steroid that Pfizer attempted to quietly convince the FDA to ban due to severe side effects such as blindness, seizures, and internal bleeding. Rather than remove the drug from circulation, the FDA chose to issue slightly stronger warning labels on the packaging. Drugs such as Depo-Medrol have not been used as widely as opioids, and their side effects have not been studied as deeply. Patients who are prescribed alternatives such as Depo-Medrol often do not receive the pain relief that prescription opioids would provide.[8] Before putting alternatives on shelves, pharmaceutical companies should fully test and develop their drugs to ensure patients will be receiving comparable pain relief with non-severe side effects.

Perhaps one of the largest contributors to the national overdose death toll is the practice of forced withdrawal for incarcerated drug abusers.[9] Opioid withdrawal, while not lethal in and of itself, can lead to fatal complications when the individual is not appropriately cared for. Excessive vomiting and other flulike symptoms can cause dehydration and subsequent heart failure. Lifelong abusers who are forced into withdrawal are often too physically sick to take care of themselves.

Other side effects of withdrawal include abdominal pain, insomnia, dysphoria, fever, and anxiety.[10] In short, opioid withdrawal is a miserable experience. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has guidelines regarding the care that inmates are supposed to receive while going through withdrawal, but these suggestions

are often ignored by wardens and other prison staff who simply do not understand the medical repercussions.[11] Furthermore, these guidelines depend largely on the honesty of the prisoners, who are expected to report any drug use to the prison supervisors in order to be adequately treated.[12] This is a difficult situation for many inmates, for they fear that the illegal nature of many narcotics will get them into more trouble with the law.

Upon release from jail or prison, users who were forced into withdrawal without a treatment program often return to a dose of opioids that their body can no longer tolerate, leading to an overdose. Additionally, in many states, parolees can be sent back to jail if a routine drug test is positive, which effectively criminalizes relapse. This is a dangerous practice, because a majority of drug abusers will relapse at some point in their path to sobriety.

[13] Abusers who have been to prison are often afraid to seek treatment or counseling because they believe it will lead to their re-incarceration.[14] If limiting prescriptions and forcing withdrawal isn’t helping as much as Congress would like to think, then what is the best solution? According to a panel of experts assembled by the New York Times in February 2018, the answer is treatment.[15] Medicationassisted treatment, or MAT, usually uses methadone or buprenorphine, opioid agonists that last longer than heroin or fentanyl. These drugs are prescribed to quell withdrawal symptoms without producing a high. When a methadone or buprenorphine program is followed appropriately, abusers can taper their use over the course of months in order to terminate their opioid dependency. Eliminating the demand for opioids is a more effective way to treat the cultural stigma surrounding opioid abuse. The panel agreed that MAT, along with improvements to educational

nupoliticalreview.com

programs and post-prison support, would be more effective than monitoring prescriptions to combat the crisis.

MAT is being introduced in prisons around the country, but not quickly enough.

Only a quarter of inmates who abuse or are dependent upon opioids receive appropriate drug treatment programs.[16] Many members of law enforcement, such as Barnstable County sheriff James M. Cummings, oppose treatment programs in prisons. “The best way to not get addicted to opioids is to never use them,” he said.[17] Barnstable County, which makes up most of Cape Cod, contributes heavily to Massachusetts’s ranking in the top ten states most affected by the opioid crisis.[18] Cummings’s viewpoint is toxic, because it belittles the millions of American people who are already addicted to opioids and do not wish to be abusers.

Despite these cultural misconceptions and setbacks, the government has made some headway toward appropriately addressing the crisis. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, has commented on medication-assisted treatments. “Medication-assisted treatment works. The evidence on this is voluminous and ever growing,” he said, in a speech to the National Governors Association in February of 2018.[19] Lack of education about methadone and buprenorphine has allowed many Americans to harbor misconceptions about their use. Many believe that MAT is simply replacing one addiction with another.

Methadone, however, doesn’t produce a high, and abusers can use it to push through their withdrawal symptoms while working their way toward total sobriety. Another common fallacy is the belief that abusers can just as easily overdose on these drugs as they

nupoliticalreview.com

can on other opioids. Overdoses caused by illicit narcotics, such as fentanyl and heroin, occur significantly more often than overdoses caused by medically prescribed opioids, such as oxycodone and methadone.[20] In fact, MAT is very safe as long as users follow the doctor’s orders, by discontinuing the use of other drugs and taking only the amount prescribed.

[21]

“

Additionally, in recent months, there has been a handful of legislation addressing synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, while encouraging treatment plans instead of arrests. One such bipartisan bill, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, was signed by President Trump in October 2018.[22] This legislation would reform Medicare and Medicaid requirements regarding opioid treatment, and provide funding to states to establish public health laboratories for detecting illicit narcotics. Although the bill adds more regulation to doctors prescribing opioid painkillers, it also directs the FDA to update guidance on bringing non-addictive pain treatment plans to their patients. This is an attempt to ensure opioid alternatives are fully studied and understood before bringing them to the public. A major component of this law is establishing permanence of buprenorphine prescribing for physician assistants and nurse

National

[1] Sanger-Katz, Sasha, “Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Overdose Deaths in 2017,” The New York Times, August 15, 2018. [2] The Associated Press, “Trump Wants Federal Suit Against Opioid Manufacturers,” The New York Times, August 16, 2018. [3] Benner, Katie, “Snaring Doctors and Drug Dealers, Justice Dept.

Intensifies Opioid Fight,” The New York Times, August 22, 2018. [4] H.R.5558 - Alternatives to Opioids Prescribing Act. [5] H.R.5723 - Expanding Oversight of Opioid Prescribing and Payment Act of 2018 [6] McCarty, D, RG Frank, and GC Denmead, “Methadone maintenance and state Medicaid managed care programs,” Milbank Quarterly 77 (1999): 341-362. [7] McCarty, “Methadone maintenance.” [8] Kaplan, Sheila, “After Doctors Cut Their Opioids, Patients Turn to a Risky Treatment for Back Pain,” The New York Times, July 31, 2018. [9] Darke, Shane, Sarah Larney, and Michael Farrell, “Yes, people can die from opiate withdrawal,” Society for the Study of Addiction, August 11, 2016. [10] Rich, Josiah D., et. al., “Methadone continuation versus forced withdrawal on incarceration in a combined US prison and jail: a randomised, open-label trial,” The Lancet 386 (2015): 350-359. [11] Darke, “Opiate withdrawal.” [12] Federal Bureau of Prisons Clinical Guidance, “Detoxification of Chemically Dependent Inmates,” February 2018. [13] Smyth, BP, J Barry, E Keenan, and K Ducray, “Lapse and relapse following inpatient treatment of opiate dependence,” Irish Medical Journal 103 (2010): 176-179. [14] Ewing, Maura, “'The Court System Shouldn't Interrupt the Treatment Process,'” The Atlantic, December 16, 2017. [15] Katz, Josh, “How a Police Chief, a Governor and a Sociologist Would Spend $100 Billion to Solve the Opioid Crisis,” The New York Times, February 14, 2018. [16] US Department of Justice, “Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2017. [17] Williams, Timothy, “Opioid Users Are Filling Jails. Why Don’t Jails Treat Them?” The New York Times, August 4, 2018. [18] Gendron, Nico, “How America's go-to holiday spot became a shoreline of addiction,” The Guardian, May 28, 2018. [19] Azar, Alex M, “Plenary Address to National Governors Association” (speech, Washington DC, February 24, 2018). [20] Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, “Opioid Overdose Deaths by Type of Opioid: 1999-2016,” kff.org. [21] The United States Resource Center and Online Directory of Methadone Treatment Clinics, “Methadone Questions and Answers,” methadone.us. [22, 23] Lopez, German, “Trump just signed a bipartisan bill to confront the opioid epidemic,” Vox, October 24, 2018. [24] Huhn, Andrew S, and Kelly E Dunn, “Why aren't physicians prescribing more buprenorphine?” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 78 (2017): 1-7.

practitioners. Previously, these medical professionals had to reapply every three years in order to write buprenorphine prescriptions.

[23] When the prescribing power of nurse practitioners and physician assistants lapses, doctors often do not have the time to do it themselves.[24] Increasing prescribing power for medical professionals thus facilitates access to MAT for abusers.

The opioid epidemic that has been plaguing the United States for at least ten years can only come to an end when legislators recognize the power they have to assist those dependent, and alter the way law enforcement and the criminal justice system approach opioid abuse. Increased access to treatment, community education and enrichment, and prison reform are by far the best strategies to end the crisis and improve the lives of the millions of Americans affected by opioid abuse, rather than over-policing suppliers of narcotics. While the movement in Congress in the first half of 2018 appears to be in the right direction, there is still plenty of work that needs to be done to improve the cultural and societal perception of opioid abuse and recovery.

Increased access to treatment, community education and enrichment, and prison reform are by far the best strategies to end the crisis and improve the lives of the millions of Americans affected by opioid abuse, rather than over-policing suppliers of narcotics.

”

Fall 2018

7

National

On Kavanaugh: A Conversation with Katia Santiago-Taylor of BARCC INGRID ANGULO / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS & ECONOMICS 2020

K

atia Santiago-Taylor wore a tailored suit and high heels but her demeanor was warm and inviting, much like the couch-filled conference room in which we sat.

Santiago-Taylor is the Advocacy and Legislative Affairs Manager at the Cambridgebased Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC). Originally from Puerto Rico, she has previously worked at the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance and Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. She helped provide support services to victims and witnesses of crimes, including homicide.

At the time of the interview, a week after Brett Kavanaugh’s judiciary hearing,

8

Fall 2018

Santiago-Taylor said BARCC was inundated with calls from survivors and volunteers. In September, Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of drunkenly sexually assaulting her at a party when she was 15 went public.[1] Kavanaugh denied the accusation, suggesting that Ford could not be sure that he was the man who assaulted her.[2] On September 27th, the Senate Judiciary Committee listened to both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh to assess their credibility and ultimately decide if Kavanaugh was fit for the job.[3] Their emotional testimonies garnered sympathy and criticism, sparking a national conversation about sexual assault.

“Fifty-eight percent of survivors think they’re going to die,” said Santiago-Taylor, comparing the gravity of sexual assault to her time working with people affected by homicide. “Sexual assault is extremely traumatizing and changes people’s lives forever.”

I spoke with Santiago-Taylor about the Kavanaugh hearing, its impact on BARCC, and how to support victims of sexual assault.

nupoliticalreview.com

Have you seen an influx of new people coming into BARCC since the Kavanaugh case made headlines?

Katia Santiago Taylor:

Our hotline has increased, the request for people to speak to has increased. It seems like we don’t have a break. A normal reaction to sexual violence is to be triggered by comments, and not a day goes by without a mention.

IA:

Have there been other high-profile cases in the news that brought a similar reaction?

KST:

It has been mounting up. The more it happens, the more survivors speak up. It’s not like R. Kelly happens and it’s a surge.

It seems survivors are feeling [like they are] in a better place to speak up. They say, “Okay, now I’m empowered.”

IA:

Do you think the reaction to these cases can prevent people from speaking up?

KST:

I think so. Some reasons why people don’t speak up is because they won’t be believed. They’ll be called liars. I hope that the reaction of the broader community supporting survivors will have a longer impact than the words of the perpetrators.

IA:

Speaking of perpetrators, what did Brett Kavanaugh get wrong in his testimony last week?

KST:

I don’t think he got anything right. It was a job interview— how many places of employment will move forward when someone’s accused [of sexual assault]?

“

nupoliticalreview.com

Fall 2018

National

Ingrid Angulo:

9

National Furthermore, why would a place hire someone who spoke to employers the way he did? It’s not an issue of political parties, it’s an issue of his behavior.

IA: What did the media get wrong when covering the case?

KST: As a form of self-care, I’m not following it. There are comments made that are victim blaming. I heard a lot of people saying “innocent until proven guilty.” Why can’t we just say, “I believe her?” Why can’t we not question her?

IA: Did they get anything right?

KST: There’s awareness. The two women confronting [Senator Jeff] Flake gave voices to survivors. Survivors can be triggered at any point. Let them speak. Let them be heard.

KST: I’m not so sure she did her job. Her role was to ask questions, not to be a prosecutor. I hope that’s not what she’s like in court or law.

A director of [human resources] could have done a better job.

being left out.

Men are coming forward slowly, but they’re coming forward. We need to be better bystanders. It’s about how we frame to them that it’s okay.

IA: When the ones directly involved in the case aren’t helping, how can an outsider help support victims?

IA: Although men are coming forward, many of them are the perpetrators. Is there a way for them to apologize in a non-problematic way?

KST: Think about all of the angles. We can’t keep mounting survivors against survivors.

Not all survivors are one. We’re all different.

IA: Are your resources strained?

KST: If it’s something the survivor is looking for. It’s not “I’m sorry I hurt you” or “I’m sorry I got caught.” It’s “I’m sorry I did this and I’ll never do it again.” Frame it to empower the survivor. Not all survivors are looking for an apology. It’s not for everyone. We should look further into restorative justice, the concept of a perpetrator owning their behavior and working with the survivor.

“

IA: How can people help give a voice to survivors?

KST: One of the things we do at BARCC is we don’t force anyone to relive details.

Survivors will remember what happened no matter what. Giving them a space to talk about where they are and what they want can be very empowering.

IA: How can a prosecutor go about addressing a victim in a sexual assault case without making them relive the details?

KST: It’s about how a victim is treated and if they’re believed and respected. The outcome doesn’t matter as much as what [the victim] feels. It’s the way the question is asked and how the survivor felt.

IA: How successful was the prosecutor in the Kavanaugh case in doing so?

The two women confronting [Senator Jeff] Flake gave voices to survivors. Survivors can be triggered at any point. Let them speak.

Let them be heard.

IA: Can an abuser grow from past actions?

”

KST: Requests for services are continuing to increase. We’re definitely tapped out. We’re busy all the time. Our priority is direct client service, so we can’t do other work we want to do.

IA: Are men coming too?

KST: Women are coming at higher rates. [The media] talks about it as a women’s issue, but non-binary people and trans women are non-proportionally assaulted. BARCC provides services to all people. The media focuses on women; men and non-binary people are

KST: I would like to think so. Statistics say that rapists commit multiple rapes. I like to think that if they were called out, they wouldn’t commit another.

IA: How can we move forward from here?

KST: Create better policies and laws.

Allocating financial resources to continue supporting survivors. [The resources go to] places like BARCC and shelters. The more people we have, the better the services will be.

[Volunteers] have a significant commitment.

They do hotline work as our request for other services continues to increase. We’re here for survivors. It doesn’t matter when, we’ll meet you where you are.

BARCC’s 24-hour hotline is 800-841-8371.

More information is available at barcc.org.

[1] Brown, Emma. “California Professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault.”

Washington Post. September 16, 2018. [2] Watkins, Eli. “Kavanaugh denies two additional accusations to Senate Judiciary Committee.” CNN. September 28, 2018. [3] Cummings, William. “Christine Ford accepts Senate invitation to testify on Kavanaugh allegation Thursday.” USA Today. September 23, 2018.

10

Fall 2018

nupoliticalreview.com

National

Attempts to Quell a Blue Wave: Voter Suppression in the 2018 Midterms CLAIRE MCHUGH / BIOLOGY 2020

V

oter suppression has been an issue since various minority groups were granted the right to vote, and the 2018 midterm elections were no exception.

However, the stakes were arguably higher than ever this year. This election followed a recent report released by the United Nations, warning that humans have approximately 10 years until irreversible and catastrophic climate change sets in–unless we take drastic, evidence-based measures.[1] Those elected to office have the choice to support or ignore those measures.

In addition to the environment, reproductive rights, economic inequality, racism, gun control, and countless other issues were especially at stake, given the new addition of conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, as well as increasingly xenophobic rhetoric from the White House.[2] Voter suppression, especially as perpetuated by Republicans to prevent minorities from voting, is not a new phenomenon. Historically, people of color have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, incentivizing Republicans to try to prevent them from voting.[3] The outright intimidation and violence of the Jim Crow era was just the beginning, with practices such as disenfranchisement of ex-offenders, voter ID laws, and illequipped polling locations employed as more subtle means of achieving the same goal years later.

One of the latest tactics in a long history of voter suppression is the restriction, and in

“

nupoliticalreview.com

some states complete elimination, of voting rights for ex-offenders. People of color, especially men of color, are more likely to be incarcerated or have a history of incarceration, so they are most affected by these laws.

[4] This increased likelihood of incarceration is due to policies of mass incarceration: mandatory minimums, the cycle of poverty, and the school-to-prison pipeline.[5] More than 6 million people across the country have lost their right to vote due to their criminal records.[6] One of the most important referendums on the ballot anywhere in the country this November was Amendment 4 in Florida, which passed with a 64% majority.[7] This referendum re-enfranchised 1.5 million felons who have completed their sentences, and who made up roughly 25% of disenfranchised for-

restored. However, all other ex-felons had their right to vote restored immediately upon passage of the referendum. The passage of Amendment 4 resulted in the re-enfranchisement of the most people in a single initiative since women gained the right to vote.[10] While the majority of Florida’s formerly incarcerated population is white, black ex-offenders were disproportionately affected by the legislation. One in 5 black voters in Florida were unable to cast their ballot in the November 2018 elections due to former felony convictions, and 1 in 10 black voters in Florida overall could not vote due to these exclusionary laws.[11] Florida has historically been a swing state, and the restoration of the voting rights of 1.5 million people could have the potential to result in future Democratic victories in the state. It is not definitively known whether the passage of Amendment 4 will make Florida a blue state, which could influence electoral college math in the 2020 presidential election.

However, a study conducted by sociologists in 2002 suggested that if felons had been allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore would have won Florida, and therefore would have won the presidency.[12] While it is not known for certain how re-enfranchisement will influence Floridian politics, it was surely a common sense, as well as common justice, measure to restore civil rights to those who have served their time for past offenses.

Another popular tactic among Republicans to prevent minority and low-income voters

The outright intimidation and violence of the Jim Crow era was just the beginning, with practices such as disenfranchisement of ex-offenders, voter ID laws, and ill-equipped polling locations employed as more subtle means of achieving the same goal years later. merly incarcerated Americans. Florida has restricted more ex-felons from voting than any state in America.[9] The caveat to this referendum is that those convicted of murder or sex offenses would not have their right to vote [8]

”

Fall 2018

11

National from casting their ballots is voter ID laws.

Voter ID laws have been passed in some form in over 30 states, supposedly to prevent voter fraud.[13] Yet, a report by the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that voter fraud accounted for between 0.0003% and 0.0025% of votes in 2007–hardly enough to sway an election.[14] Voter ID laws disproportionately affect Black, Latinx, and low-income communities, as obtaining an ID can cost upwards of $75 in some states when taking into account travel expenses, lost wages, and fees.[15] It has been shown that 25% of African Americans of voting age lack appropriate ID, as compared to 8% of whites.[16] This puts African Americans at a disadvantage in states with strict voter ID laws.

Voter ID laws were passed in a frenzy by Republican-controlled state legislatures after President Obama was elected, and prominent Republicans have admitted that voter ID laws are designed to limit Democratic voters.[17] A Republican legislator from Pennsylvania said in 2012 that the state’s voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”[18] Voter ID laws have been at the forefront of national debate for years, but the issue became more pressing in light of the consequential November 6th election. In April 2018, the state legislature of North Dakota passed a law that requires voters to have an ID with a street address, disqualifying those who have P.O. Boxes.[19] This disproportionately affects the Native American population in North Dakota, which totals about 10% of the total population of the state.[20] Native Americans predominantly live on reservations, which do not have physical street addresses. Instead, many Native Americans use P.O. boxes as their addresses for ID and other legal documents. Furthermore, Native Americans are overrepresented in North Dakota’s homeless population, leaving a large portion without street addresses for their IDs.[21] The law was challenged and the case was brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled in mid-October 2018 to uphold the law.[22] With less than one month before the midterm elections, thousands of Native

12

Fall 2018

Americans had to rush to obtain updated ID and physical street addresses if they intended to vote. This law was passed by a Republicancontrolled state legislature, likely to limit the voting rights of Native Americans, who tend to vote for Democrats.[23] It is important to note that North Dakota’s Senate race was hotly contested and closely watched this year– resulting in the victory of Republican Kevin Kramer, who was “personally recruited by President Donald Trump to take on vulnerable Democratic incumbent Heidi Heitkamp.”[24][25] The purging of voter rolls and the elimination of monitoring under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) also contribute to limiting the power of minority voters. The purging of voter rolls can play a major part in deciding elections, just as it did in 2000. George W. Bush was declared the winner in Florida by the Supreme Court by a narrow margin of 537 votes, but it was later discovered that over 12,000 voters had been purged from the rolls because their names resembled those of convicted felons.[26] Years later, in 2013, a vital portion of the VRA was struck down by the Supreme Court, which mandated that counties with histories of discrimination must have their election rules and practices routinely monitored by the Justice Department. A recent study showed that in 381 counties that were formerly monitored for past civil rights abuses, 868 polling locations have closed since part of the VRA was struck down.[27] In Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election, voter suppression continues to be a hot topic. Democrat Stacey Abrams challenged Republican Brian Kemp, current Georgia Secretary of State. Secretaries of State are in charge of presiding over state elections and enforcing the state’s election rules. Many Democrats called for Kemp to resign from his position as Georgia’s Secretary of State, seeing as he essentially oversaw his own race for governor, and did not relinquish his position.[28] A source of criticism, 53,000 new voter registrations were suspended by Kemp’s office, 70% of which were for African Americans.[29] This was

“

due to a law that was passed in 2017, at Kemp’s behest, that requires an exact match between a voter’s name and information to their identification. This means that if a hyphen or single letter is different between the name on the voter registration and the voter’s ID, the registration can be suspended and is subject to review by Kemp’s office.

All 53,000 Georgians were sent letters by the Secretary of State’s office stating that their voter registration was on hold. This, according to Abram’s campaign, led to confusion among voters and may have caused many of the 53,000 voters to sit out this election. All

Many hoped that the 2018 midterm elections would be a major turning point for political leadership in the United States. However, the blue wave that was highly desired and anticipated by many was diminished in part by the myriad of voter suppression tactics employed by Republicans nationwide.

”

of these “suspended” voters would have been able to vote with proper ID; however this was not made clear in the letter sent out by Mr. Kemp’s office.[30] This confusion was expected to especially affect turnout for rural voters, many of whom may not have received word that they were eligible to vote in November.

According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, Georgia removed 1.5 million voter registrations from the rolls between 2012 and 2016.[31] This study also suggests that the practice of removing deceased voters from the rolls has resulted in the purging of active nupoliticalreview.com

National

voters.[32] A lawsuit filed in October found that in one electorally important and liberal-leaning Georgia county, Kemp’s office rejected 8.5% of absentee ballots, as compared to 2% rejected statewide.[33] Additionally, over 200 voter precincts have closed in Georgia since 2012, during Mr. Kemp’s tenure.[34] This increased the strain on rural voters, as well as confusion for newly registered voters. Fewer polling places also creates further difficulty for low-income voters who are unable to travel long distances to vote.

Several lawsuits were filed against Secretary of State Kemp and his office’s voter suppression tactics, but the outcomes of these lawsuits are unclear at the time of writing (November 7th). Regardless, the blatant efforts made by Kemp and his campaign to prevent voters from having their voices heard in their election is indefensible. These tactics are not only prevalent in Georgia, but in other states throughout the country, especially ones with Republican controlled legislatures and Secretaries of State.[35] Despite Republican efforts to deter voting, Democrats managed to regain control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms, instilling checks and balances over a formerly entirely Republican-controlled Congress and executive branch.[36] Another victory lies in the aforementioned passage of Amendment 4 in Florida.[37] Yet, the effects of deeping partisanship and voter suppression were still felt, such as Heidi Heitkamp’s defeat

by Representative Kramer, which many contribute in part to the passage of the state’s new voter ID law. Heitkamp won her last election in 2012 by the narrow margin of 3,000 votes, and a strong base of her support came from Native Americans in the state.[38] Stacey Abrams’ bid to become the nation’s first black female governor is still uncertain at the time of writing, as the margin of Kemp’s current vote share is only 50.8%, according to the Associated Press.[39] In Georgia, if one candidate does not have at least 50% of the vote, an automatic runoff is triggered.

Both the Kemp and the Abrams campaigns acknowledge that there are still absentee, nupoliticalreview.com

provisional, and early ballots to be counted, meaning the results of that contest are still to be determined.[40] The Abrams campaign estimates there are still 97,000 ballots to be counted, according to their internal tracking, and Abrams needs only 25,000 votes to trigger a runoff.[41] However, there have been reports of voting indiscrepancies coming from all over Georgia, including lines at polling places stretching for over 4 hours, and voting machines that ran out of battery because they were not provided with power cords. Several precincts were court ordered to extend their hours on election day due to the instability and chaos.[42] If Abrams receives enough votes in order to trigger a runoff election, it would be held on December 4th.[43] Many hoped that the 2018 midterm elections would be a major turning point for political leadership in the United States. However, the blue wave that was highly desired and anticipated by many was diminished in part by the myriad of voter suppression tactics employed by Republicans nationwide.[b] These tactics mainly targeted people of color and low-income voters who tend to vote Democrat. This blatant disregard for civil rights violates the very character of our Constitution, and has the potential to influence elections for years to come. These elections were consequential not only in determining who will control Congress or the White House, but also indicative of how much honesty and justice is valued in our political processes. Republicans continue to try to restrict the voting rights of their opposition; it is up to us, the public, to become aware of these issues and pressure our newly elected leaders to address them, especially with the 2020 presidential election just around the corner.

[1] “Climate Change.” The United Nations. Accessed November 01, 2018.

[2] Hirschfeld Davis, Julie. “President Wants to Use Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship.” The New York Times. October 30, 2018. [3] Frey, William. “Will minority and female turnout surges seal Democratic midterm victories?” The Brookings Institute. October 31, 2018. [4] “Criminal Justice Fact Sheet.” NAACP. Accesses November 07, 2018. [5] Wagner, Peter and Wendy Sawyer. “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2018.” The Prison Policy Initiative. March 14, 2018. [6] Bazelon, Emily. “Will Florida’s Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?” The New York Times.

September 26, 2018. [7] Mak, Tim. “Over 1 Million Florida Felons Win Right To Vote With Amendment 4.” NPR. November 07, 2018. [8] Bazelon, Emily. “Will Florida’s Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?” [9] Gross, Samantha J and Elizabeth Koh. “What is Amendment 4 on Florida ballot? It affects restoration of felons’ voting rights.” The Miami Herald.

October 05, 2018. [10] Bazelon, Emily. “Will Florida’s Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?” [11] Ibid. [12] Uggen, Christopher and Jeff Manza. "Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States." American Sociological Review 67, no. 6: 777-803. 2002. [13] “Oppose Voter Id Legislation - Fact Sheet.” The American Civil Liberties Union. May 2017. [14] Levitt, Justin. “The Truth About Voter Fraud.” The Brennan Center for Justice. November 09, 2007.

[15] “Oppose Voter Id Legislation - Fact Sheet.” The American Civil Liberties Union. [16] Ibid. [17] Horwitz, Sari. “Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.” The Washington Post.

May 23, 2016. [18] Hopkins, Dan. “What We Know About Voter ID Laws.”

FiveThirtyEight. August 21, 2018. [19] Domonoske, Camila. “Many Native IDs Won't Be Accepted At North Dakota Polling Places.” NPR. October 13, 2018. [20] “Native American Population in North Dakota.” The North Dakota Census Office. December 2015. [21] Domonoske, Camila. “Many Native IDs Won't Be Accepted At North Dakota Polling Places.” [22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid. [24] Cauterucci, Christina. “Heitkamp’s Kavanaugh Vote Didn’t Cost Her the Election. But It Makes Her Loss Even More Painful.” Slate.

November 07, 2018. [25] Domonoske, Camila. “Many Native IDs Won't Be Accepted At North Dakota Polling Places.” [26] Bazelon, Emily. “Will Florida’s Ex-Felons Finally Regain the Right to Vote?” [27] Inouye, Shin. “New Report Documents 868 Polling Place Closures in Former VRA Preclearance States.” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. November 04, 2016. [28] Herndon, Astead and Trip Gabriel. “Showdown in Georgia Governor’s Race Reflects a Larger Fight Over Voting Rights.” The New York Times. October 15, 2018. [29] Ibid. [30] Ibid. [31] Brater, Jonathan and Kevin Morris, Myrna Pérez, and Christopher Deluzio. “Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote.” The Brennan Center for Justice. 2018. [32] Herndon, Astead. “Georgia Voting Begins Amid Accusations of Voter Suppression.” The New York Times. October 19, 2018. [33] Ibid. [34] Ibid.

[35] Herndon, Astead and Trip Gabriel. “Showdown in Georgia Governor’s Race Reflects a Larger Fight Over Voting Rights.” [36] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Two Years After Trump’s Victory, Voters Erect an Impediment to His Power.” The New York Times. November 06, 2018. [37] The Associated Press. “Florida Passes Amendment to Restore Felons' Voting Rights.” The New York Times. November 6, 2018. [38] Cauterucci, Christina. “Heitkamp’s Kavanaugh Vote Didn’t Cost Her the Election. But It Makes Her Loss Even More Painful.” [39] The Associated Press. “AP Explains: A Georgia Governor's Race, Still Going.” The New York Times. November 6, 2018.

[40] Ibid. [41] Ibid. [42] Graham, Renee. “Brian Kemp’s voter suppression in Georgia.” The Boston Globe. November 07, 2018. [43] The Associated Press. “AP Explains: A Georgia Governor's Race, Still Going.”

Fall 2018

13

Global

Challenges to Democracy: Rewriting Japan’s Article 9 RINTARO NISHIMURA / POLITICAL SCIENCE 2022

I

n the recent in-party election held on September 20th, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe secured a historic third term as the Prime Minister of Japan, defeating former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba by an overwhelming margin.[1] Guaranteed executive control of the central government for the next three years, Abe has begun to set his political agenda for this term. Perhaps most noteworthy has been his reaffirmed desire to revise Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution, a task much easier said than done. In the press conference immediately following the in-party election, the Prime Minister suggested it was the “right time to reform the Constitution, and move the country into its future.”[2] Encouraged by American General Douglas MacArthur after World War II, Article 9 was incorporated in the Constitution to prevent Japan from ever again posing a military threat: “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”[3][4] In accordance with these principles, the Constitution further vows that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.

The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”[5] With this second provision, Japan essentially relinquished its potential to declare or go to war in perpetuity—or at least until a Prime Minister who was willing to revisit the provision entered office.

Although Prime Minister Abe and the Cabinet of Japan seem confident in their ability to amend Article 9.. Recently, a top official claimed that the amendment would pass within one year, and political analysts close to the cabinet claim that even some opposing parties would be willing to vote for the amendment.[6][7] However, Abe still faces a number of significant obstacles. The largest challenge for the executive government will likely originate from the widespread lack of public understanding. Quite simply, the Japanese people don’t seem to have a good understanding of what a revision to Article 9

“

16

Fall 2018

would entail.[8] Pushing such a monumental amendment through the legislature without an identifiable and reasonable purpose will not be enough. In the name of democracy and popular sovereignty, Japanese citizens are entitled to an explanation, and deserve one before any major constitutional action is undertaken.

The logistics and language of a constitutional amendment to Article 9 are not nearly as well-defined as Prime Minister Abe’s commitment to a revision. Several proposals for revising the Article are currently being contemplated by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). One proposal includes codifying the existence of Japan’s Self Defense Force (SDF) into the Constitution, while leaving the bulk of the Article untouched.[9] The Japanese SDF was originally established as the National Police Reserve after World War II, and has never been used outside of Japan or its surrounding waters (aside from its controversial support of several UN peacekeeping missions).[10] Another more confrontational proposal suggests deleting the second provision entirely, and replacing it with a clause that explicitly grants the SDF war-waging powers.

[11]

As with any complex political issue, each proposed solution has its own unique set of problems. Japan’s SDF has long been considered an organization that has the “minimum necessary level” of military strength for

self-defense and, as such, has never been considered unconstitutional.[12] The chief concern with writing the SDF (under its current definition) into the Constitution is whether this “minimum necessary level” would include a right to protect Japan’s allies in the case of international conflict.[13] Merely adding “organization with force” into the definition of the SDF would not conclusively define the parameters of “self-defense.”[14] Still, other proposals suggest dropping the second provision entirely, explicitly establishing the SDF as an army.[15] This would completely violate the current provisions of the Article, effectively rendering Article 9 null and void. Though this may seem like a drastic measure, the irony of the SDF is that despite what its name may suggest, it has the capacity to stand toe-totoe with most full-fledged militaries around the world.[16] Realistically, the sole difference between the SDF and other countries’ militaries lies in its inability to call itself an army and proactively intervene in armed conflicts.

Though Abe and his cabinet have consistently declared that the revision is intended only to clarify the legal status of the SDF, opposition parties are doubtful. Opposition parties have suggested that the rewriting of Article 9 is primarily a move by Prime Minister Abe to secure his own personal legacy. The Prime Minister had suggested at one point that he wished to revise the Constitution before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, but quickly backpedaled once this was deemed impossible.[17] As there is speculation that this will be Abe’s last term as prime minister, it seems as though he is growing increasingly desperate to pass an amendment.[18] Opposition parties argue that the amendment is the administration’s attempt to draw attention away from the many scandals and economic stagnancy that have plagued Abe’s tenure—a golden opportunity to end his political career with a toutable

Pushing such a monumental amendment through the legislature without an identifiable and reasonable purpose will not be enough. In the name of democracy and popular sovereignty, Japanese citizens are entitled to an explanation, and deserve one before any major constitutional action is undertaken.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

achievement. Regardless of his true intentions, it is unconscionable that the Prime Minister put his personal desires above those of the Japanese public, abusing his party’s majority by passing a monumental amendment about which almost 40% of voters are undecided.[19] In order to ratify a revision to the Constitution, the amendment must pass with a super-majority through both Houses and then with a majority in a national referendum.

[20] As is the case in American politics, a super-majority in both Houses can be quite a difficult consensus to secure.

However, one huge difference exists between the American and Japanese systems: compulsory adherence to the party’s decisions. If the party decides to vote one way, all the politicians must toe the party line. This is something that probably comes as a surprise to Americans accustomed to Democrats or Republicans occasionally voting against legislation introduced by fellow party members. In Japan, voting against the party would result in dismissal, secession, or verbal reprimand.[21] Considering that the ruling LDP-Komeito Party coalition currently holds a majority in both Houses—312 out of 465 seats in the House of Representatives and 150 out of 242 seats in the House of Councillors—the ruling party is practically free to pass any legislation it wishes.[22][23] It is from this immense power that the administration’s confidence presumably stems. Should Abe draft an amendment and successfully pass it through both Houses, the fate of Article 9 would rest squarely with the Japanese people, and, in that case, data suggests that its fate would be far from certain.

Opinion polling of Japanese citizens has brought to light the glaring lack of public

“

nupoliticalreview.com

understanding surrounding the issue of Article 9 and its implications for Japanese politics. A recent poll conducted by NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) suggested that 29% of Japanese citizens support revision of the Article, while 27% are opposed.[24] What is striking from these results is not necessarily the division within the population, but that close to 40% of people don’t even know whether they support or oppose the revision.

[25] The first logical step then would then be to educate the citizens on the economic, social, and political ramifications of revising Article 9. Some citizens are under the impression that the revision would foster more violence in the region and that the relative regional peace that has existed for decades would inevitably cease.[26] However, the reality is that a revision would almost certainly not be intended to militarize Japan in the same way it was militarized in the 1940s. The Prime Minister’s main goal seems to be enabling the SDF to settle existing international conflicts, rather than start new ones, but it is clear that people need this reassurance from the government before any actual revision can occur.

The worst case scenario would be for the amendment to be passed in the current environment of public ignorance. Even if the Japanese people did approve the amendment in a national referendum, can democracy truly prevail in an environment where approximately 40% of the citizens are undecided on the issue? Some solace can be found in the fact that politicians are unlikely to risk their seat by supporting the amendment amidst vocal public opposition. With the 2019 House of Councillors election around the corner, politicians are unlikely to vote against the preferences

Regardless of his true intentions, it is unconscionable that the Prime Minister put his personal desires above those of the Japanese public, abusing his party’s majority by passing a monumental amendment about which almost 40% of voters are undecided.

”

“

Global

[1] Osaki, Tomohiro. “Abe Tops Ishiba in Liberal Democratic Party Election and Secures Historic Third Term.” The Japan Times. September 20, 2018. [2] "Prime Minister ‘Challenging the Revision of Article 9’ 3rd Term as Head of LDP, 3 Year-Tenure." Nikkei Newspaper. September 20, 2018. [3] Sasaki, Tomoyuki. "An Army for the People: The Self- Defense Forces and Society in Postwar Japan." EScholarship University of California. April 12, 2013. [4] "The Constitution of Japan." The Constitution of Japan. Accessed September 06, 2018. [5] "The Constitution of Japan." [6] "LDP Secretary General Nikai, ‘Amendment Will Be Passed Within 1 Year.’" Nikkei Newspaper. January 12, 2018.

[7] Miyazaki, Ami. "LDP-Komeito Coalition Win Election - Article 9 Amendment to Move Forward." Reuters. October 22, 2017. [8] Japan Broadcast Corporation. "Public Opinion Poll Regarding the Constitution 2018." NHK World.

[9] "Editorial: LDP's Proposed Revision to Article 9 Fraught with Problems." The Mainichi. March 01, 2018. [10] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Self-Defense Force." Encyclopaedia Britannica. April 21, 2011. [11] "Editorial: LDP's Proposed Revision to Article 9 Fraught with Problems." [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. [16] Lendon, Brad. "Resurgent Japan Military 'can stand toe to toe with anybody.'" CNN. December 07, 2016. [17] Reynolds, Isabel, and Emi Nobuhiro. "Abe Eroding Japan Pacifism for Own Legacy, Opposition Chief Says." Bloomberg. December 25, 2017. [18] Rich, Motoko. "Shinzo Abe Gets One Step Closer to Becoming Japan's Longest-Serving Premier." The New York Times. September 20, 2018. [19] Japan Broadcast Corporation. "Public Opinion Poll Regarding the Constitution 2018." [20] Umeda, Sayuri. "Japan: Interpretations of Article 9 of the Constitution." Planning D-Day (April 2003) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin. September 01, 2015. [21] "What Is Party Restraint?" Accessed October 15, 2018. [22] "Number of Members of Parliament by Faction." The House of Representatives, Japan. October 10, 2018. [23] "Strength of the Political Groups in the House of Councillors." House of Councillors, The National Diet of Japan. October 15, 2018. [24] Japan Broadcast Corporation. "Public Opinion Poll Regarding the Constitution 2018."

[25] Ibid. [26] Gover, Ted. "Abe's Right - It's Time to Codify the SDF." The Japan Times. March 27, 2018.

of their constituents, which gives citizens a great opportunity to have their voices heard.

At the moment, however, there’s not enough incentive for politicians to ignore the party agenda and postpone a decision should the administration propose an amendment. For the sake of democracy, Japanese citizens on both sides of this issue must come together to demand a more comprehensive plan and explanation before any serious decisions are made.

The citizens of Japan have the right to hold their government accountable for any legislation it attempts to pass. In a country with no strong partisan affiliations, people either need to mobilize more effectively, or politicians need to engage more closely with their constituents. An amendment of Article 9 is sure to eventually pass both Houses and come down to a national referendum. Before they are forced unwillingly into this situation, Japanese citizens regardless of political ideology must be proactive and demand that their representatives explain the motivations and consequences of this constitutional revision.

Without this explanation, there is a great risk that people will vote without a sound understanding of the issue or, perhaps even worse, decide not to vote at all. The results of this referendum should turn on the sentiments of all Japanese citizens, not only the 60-70% who have made up their minds. The tyranny of the majority cannot prevail in a moment of such tremendous and lasting importance for the nation’s future.

Should Abe draft an amendment and successfully pass it through both Houses, the fate of Article 9 would rest squarely with the Japanese people, and, in that case, data suggests that its fate would be far from certain.

Fall 2018

17

Global

Fascism's Mainstream Resurgence in Brazil JILLIAN WRIGLEY / MARKETING & POLITICAL SCIENCE 2021

O

n October 28th, far-right former military captain Jair Bolsonaro was elected president of Brazil by 55%, defeating Fernando Haddad of the left-leaning Workers’ Party and cementing a win for the country’s far-right movement.[1] Over the last few decades, Brazil’s political institutions have faced constant turmoil. In 1985, the country saw a glimmer of hope when the 20-year-long military regime was replaced with a civilian government.

The nation enacted a constitution in line with democracies around the world, establishing separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers, bans on censorship, and condemnation of torture.

“

[2]

But in the past few years, unrest and dissatisfaction with the government has increased due to corruption, economic crises, and spikes in violent crime; all of which have made the weaknesses in Brazil’s political institutions clear and vulnerable–vulnerable enough for the return of extreme populist and far-right leadership to become a detrimental reality.

As a former military captain himself, Jair Bolsonaro is emblematic of Brazil’s past fascist regime. Despite recent statements promising to act as a “defender of the Constitution, democracy and liberty,” Bolsonaro has frequently expressed his admiration for Colonel Ustra, former leader of the country’s military dictatorship who embraced torture, murder, and rape, as “necessary tools in the fight against communism.”[3][4] In a television interview in 1999, Bolsonaro argued that voting will never change anything, and that political progress will only be made when “a civil war breaks out here and does the job that the military regime didn’t do...Innocent people will die, okay, but in every war, innocents die.”[5] Between 1964

18

Fall 2018

and 1985, the Brazilian military suspended all opposing political parties, denied Congress the right to delay executive orders, and exacerbated the country’s high rates of illiteracy, malnutrition, and infant mortality.[6] Yet, the president-elect claims that this was a time when the country was strong and unencumbered with the ineffectiveness of democracy.

This type of fear and frustration with the perceived political norm is frighteningly similar to that of the populist movement that won Donald Trump the U.S. presidential election in 2016. In the same way, Bolsonaro has marketed himself as the candidate of safety and reason; the man who will make a broken and corrupt Brazil ‘great’ once again.

you don’t deserve it.” When do Rosario replied, “I certainly hope so, because I would hit you if you did,” Bolsonaro physically pushed her and said, “hit me and I’ll hit you back…go away, you whore.”[7] He later said in a newspaper interview that do Rosário was “very ugly” and “not worth raping.”[8] In 2018, do Rosário reflected on the situation with dread: “[Us] women, with what happened to me...we fear that [a Bolsonaro victory] would legitimize even more violence.”[9] The question remains why 55% of a country with a compulsory voting system would elect a leader so at odds with every democratic idea in their constitution, as well as with general norms of equality and respect.

The unfortunate reality is that Brazil’s young democratic institutions have become fragmented and strained.

During the 2018 presidential election, people were still reeling from one of the largest corruption scandals the country has ever seen. Last April, former leftwing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was imprisoned for money laundering.

[10] These types of scandals, along with an economic crisis and rising crime rates, have left the people of Brazil divided and distrustful of their current government.

“I want to see if he can change things, because we have to do something about security and about education and the economy,” said Carlos Alberto da Silva, a textile-delivery worker who voted for Jair Bolsonaro.[11] This type of fear and frustration with the perceived political norm is frighteningly similar to that of the populist movement that won Donald Trump the U.S. presidential election in 2016. In the same way, Bolsonaro has marketed himself as the candidate of safety and reason; the man who will make a broken and corrupt Brazil ‘great’ once again. Bolsonaro has built the

”

Bolsonaro has previously been criticized for using this type of incendiary and hateful rhetoric. In 2014, congresswoman Maria do Rosário confronted him in person about his open promotion of violence, especially violence against women. While surrounded by journalists, Bolsonaro responded: “Ok, record this…look, I would never rape you, because

nupoliticalreview.com

“

as an “outspoken neoliberal financer.”[18] Together they plan to fix Brazil’s large budget deficit by attracting investors and privitizating state assets, including 70% of the Amazon rainforest, which falls under Brazil’s political jurisdiction.[19] Bolsonaro’s plans to privatize the Amazon for the sake of economic gain have several drastic and horrifying implications. For

undo these efforts by increasing mining, agricultural land use, and power plant production in order to fix the country’s chronic energy shortages.[22] News of Bolsonaro’s plans came not even one month after the United Nations’ panel on climate change warned that the world stands on the brink of environmental disaster if “rapid and far-reaching” measures are not taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions, specifically citing the need to convert agricultural land back to forests.[23] It is more than likely that under Bolsonaro’s leadership, Brazil will become a major contributor to climate change, rather than a solution-seeking leader.

After receiving an influx of positive endorsements and congratulations from other populist leaders, Bolsonaro’s inflammatory, violent, and racist politics will only continue to be normalized and accepted.[24] Experts predict that his presidency will weaken and set back Brazilian democracy by at least 30 years. “The extreme right has conquered Brazil,” said Celso Rocha de Barros, a Brazilian political columnist.

“Brazil now has a more extremist president than any democratic country in the world…we don’t know what is going to happen.”[25] At first glance, the presidential election in Brazil may seem like a distant event that will only impact those residing within its borders.

But Bolsonaro’s enthusiastic support of fascist principles and his promised legislation makes his election one of the most radical and dangerous that we’ve seen not just in Latin America, but internationally as well.

Global

foundation of his platform around a promise of returning the country to “law and order.”[12] But based on his proposed agenda, it is obvious that his plans to reinstate ‘order’ threaten Brazil, extending to the world at large. Crime in Brazil has become rampant and unmanageable, which became evident when homicides hit a record high of 63,880 in 2017, “nearly twice the number in the United States and the European Union combined.”[13] And Bolsonaro’s “zero tolerance” crime policy was undoubtedly the center focus of his campaign. But despite the fact that Brazil’s police force is one of the deadliest worldwide, responsible for over 5,000 recorded deaths this year alone, Bolsonaro has called for further police violence: “A policeman who doesn’t kill isn’t a policeman.”[14] Experts warn that there is no basis to prove that Bolsonaro’s tough-oncrime approach will work, and, if anything, it could make life worse for the 52% of the population that is not white.[15] “Things will get worse,” said Ilona Szabó, director of the Igarapé Institute, a Brazilian-based think tank. “The police will kill more. There will be more extrajudicial killings, especially of people in the slums and of blacks.”[16] Despite being the largest Latin American country based on GDP, Brazil’s current economic crisis has sent the country into a state of panic, with over 13 million unemployed citizens.[17] To solve this crisis, Bolsonaro, admittedly, has no clue. After proudly claiming he knows “nothing about economics,” Bolsonaro has left financial policy decisions in the hands of investment banker and economist Paulo Guedes, who has been described

It is more than likely that under Bolsonaro’s leadership, Brazil will become a major contributor to climate change, rather than a solutionseeking leader. one, Bolsonaro no longer plans to recognize indigenous tribal territories as legitimate, and wants to open these areas to expanded exploration. “If he wins, he will institutionalize genocide,” says Dinamam Tuxá, the National Coordinator of Brazil’s Association of Indigenous Peoples. “He has already said that the federal government will no longer champion indigenous rights, such as access to the land. We are very scared. I fear for my own life.”[20] The Amazon, the world's largest and most diverse rainforest, has lost 20% of its ecosystem to deforestation over the last 50 years; in the past decade, Brazil has been a leader in the fight against climate change, pledging to greatly reduce their deforestation and carbon emissions.[21] However, Bolsonaro plans to

”

[1] Charner, Flora. “Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro wins presidential election in Brazil.” CNN. October 29, 2018. [2] Schneider, Ronald. “Brazil - The return of civilian government.” Encyclopedia Britannica. October 29, 2018. [3] Londoño, Ernesto. “Jair Bolsonaro Wins Brazil’s Presidency, in a Shift to the Far Right.” The New York Times. October 28, 2018. [4] Fogel, Benjamin. “Fascism has arrived in Brazil – Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency will be worse than you think.” Independent UK. October 29, 2018. [5] Faiola, Anthony. “Who is Jair Bolsonaro, the man likely to be Brazil’s next president?” Washington Post. October 28, 2018. [6] Burns, Bradford E. “Brazil - Military intervention and dictatorship.” Encyclopedia Britannica. October 29, 2018. [7] “New President of Brazil Told a Congresswoman She ‘Didn’t Deserve’ to Get Raped by Him.” Now This News. October 29, 2018. [8] Meredith, Sam. “Who is the 'Trump of the Tropics?': Brazil's divisive new president, Jair Bolsonaro— in his own words.” CNBC. October 29, 2018. [9] American Foreign Press, “‘Not Worth of Rape’ Deputy says she fears for Brazil under Bolsonaro.” Eyewitness News. October 20, 2018. [10] Andreoni, Manuela. “Ex-President ‘Lula’ of Brazil Surrenders to Serve 12-Year Jail Term.” The New York Times. April 07, 2018. [11] Bevins, Vincent. “Can Brazil’s Democracy Withstand Jair Bolsonaro?” The Atlantic. October 29, 2018. [12] Strumpf, Dan. “What the Election of Jair Bolsonaro Means for Brazil.” Wall Street Journal. October 29, 2018. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Castillo, Mariano. “Minorities now officially a majority in Brazil.” CNN. June 16, 2011.

[16] Faiola, Anthony. “How Jair Bolsonaro entranced Brazil’s minorities — while also insulting them.” The Washington Post. October 24, 2018. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Tharoor, Ishaan. “How Brazil’s Bolsonaro threatens the planet.”

The Washington Post. October 19, 2018. [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Brito, Ricardo. “Brazil's Bolsonaro plans more power plants in the Amazon: adviser.” Reuters. October 11, 2018. [23] Davenport, Coral. “Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040.”The New York Times. October 07, 2018. [24] Marshall, Euan. Marshall, Euan. “Brazil braced for mass protests over Jair Bolsonaro as Trump pledges military support for far-Right former army captain.” Telegraph UK. October 29, 2018. [25] Phillips, Tom. “Jair Bolsonaro declared Brazil's next president.” The Guardian. October 29, 2018

nupoliticalreview.com

Fall 2018

19

Featured

Is the Market Moral?

GARRY CANEPA / POLITICAL SCIENCE & ECONOMICS 2019

F

eel-good Hollywood movies are a hallmark of American culture. From childhood Disney films like Aladdin and Cinderella, to classics like Rocky and Forrest Gump, American media saturates our screens with moral heroes who overcome challenges and earn deserved rewards, leaving the wicked villains with their just deserts.

This fondness for satisfying endings isn’t new. During the early industrial era, author Horatio Alger wrote similar “rags-to-riches” stories, capturing the hearts of teary-eyed Americans, hopeful that the world fit their idealized notions of fairness. Romanticized stories of merited success may help explain our uniqueness among advanced nations in viewing outcomes as determined by personal effort rather than external factors.[1] We trust moral individuals to master their own destinies and distrust the involvement of others, especially government, in influencing outcomes.

But doesn’t our system of social cooperation resemble our favorite movies? Can’t any American who works hard and plays by the rules succeed?

And haven’t hardworking people earned their rewards through their morals and virtues, while those who struggle lack the same character? Of course not. Only misguided cognitive dissonance fueled by excessive free market optimism, national zeal, attractive political rhetoric, and desire to legitimize our egoism allows us to consider market rewards and their redistribution as just.[2] We would like to believe that America is fair, and that our market income reflects what we deserve. While these beliefs are mutually incompatible, as market outcomes fail to reflect ideals of fairness, simultaneous commitment to both is widespread.[3] What isn’t properly emphasized is that a fair society requires both taxation and spending to provide opportunity and correct marketgenerated injustices, such as involuntary unemployment and the morally arbitrary positions and movements of incomes. These market positions don’t have moral worth, allowing a legitimate role for redistribution to help secure fairer outcomes.

Despite a seemingly subjective view of fairness, diverse ideologies may reveal a consensus that a fair distribution would be

“

20

Fall 2018

determined by personal responsibility, merit, and creation of value. Fairness would then require taxation and redistribution to tie outcomes closer to these factors of individual choice, and away from social circumstances.[4] It is often claimed that market outcomes are determined by merit, with the more deserving rightly receiving more, like in the movies. Merit includes moral traits like talent, hard work, and adherence to principles. For instance, in Rocky we feel that our main character deserves to win in his fight against Apollo Creed due to his work ethic and bravery in the face of adversity. But while merit often factors into outcomes, it's far from being the only determinant of position in our complex, interdependent market society.

If market outcomes truly reflected moral

outcomes are deemed unjust.

While the market is vital for allocating goods, capital, and labor efficiently, we mustn't lose sight of what it really is: a tool, shaped and founded upon socially developed institutions to promote social welfare. It doesn’t create sacred ends in and of itself. Unfortunately, too many view the market as more than a tool, ascribing it as a procedure generating moral desert–the benefits or disadvantages a person should justly receive–creating inalienable property rights, the redistribution of which is inherently unjust.[5] While the market provides a semblance of meritocracy, market outcomes also depend on forces entirely unrelated to moral worth and desert. In reality, we haven’t advanced too far from the pre-industrial economic system, when the distribution of wealth and status was largely determined by arbitrary features like social class, race, and gender. We must disregard market income as a measurement of moral worth and a benchmark of fairness, instead recognizing the arbitrariness that leads to “our” money.

This isn’t to say that it’s immoral to reap rewards from morally arbitrary factors like natural endowments or social circumstances, but inequality resulting from these factors should maximize social welfare, particularly benefitting the least advantaged.[6][7] Using Forrest Gump as an example, natural endowments would include Forrest’s ping pong abilities, while social circumstances would include the storm that eliminated his shrimping competition. Incentives should allow individuals to develop and use their endowments for productive social advancement. This would lead to inequality, but inequality that serves a public good, such as encouraging Forrest to develop and perform his ping-pong talents and provide usable shrimp.

However, if inequality serves no socially useful purpose, as in the unequal wages paid to the capuchin monkeys referenced in the previous article, inequality is unjustified and open to correction.[8] Imagine the market as mountaineering, with rewards represented by height reached.

Hard work, talent, and perseverance play a

Attaching virtue to incomes means attaching vice to public or private redistribution, making charity a wicked act of redistributing rewards from the more-deserving to the less-deserving. weight, all forms of charity, by extension, would be deemed immoral for deviating from these moral outcomes. Attaching virtue to incomes means attaching vice to public or private redistribution, making charity a wicked act of redistributing rewards from the more-deserving to the less-deserving.

It is often countered that private citizens should determine their own level of donations to the less fortunate through private charity–but why should justice depend on goodwill? Criminal justice doesn’t depend on the goodwill of alleged criminals to turn themselves in; the state is obligated to take them into custody, by force if necessary.

A right to a trial by jury, while not a natural right, entitles individuals to a service and imposes a duty onto others for procuring that service. Similarly, redistribution for more just outcomes shouldn’t rely on people’s malleable feelings of goodwill or even pity. Instead, fair outcomes should be guaranteed if market

”

nupoliticalreview.com

“

We must disregard market income as a measurement of moral worth and a benchmark of fairness, instead recognizing the arbitrariness that leads to “our” money.

”

interdependent market system can similarly subject participants to random shocks (think American manufacturing or recessions) and slow developments (technological innovation) which may lead to morally unjustified outcomes.

While a mountain-based system of rewards may value some characteristics which reflect merit, such as swimming abilities, the system only rewards talents relevant to mountain climbing. Similarly, while patience, hard work, and social conscience are virtues, the market doesn’t reward these traits in and of themselves, explaining the discrepancy in pay between political lobbyists and social workers independent of social conscience.

Even when positions on the mountain are determined, this still leaves open how rewards should be distributed (proportional vs. winner-take-all). Likewise, a market creates outcomes that can’t indicate moral desert.

Rather than producing sacred ends, market outcomes can only be viewed as outcomes of what markets and institutions happen to produce, bearing little if any moral significance. Or, as Forrest Gump would say: “It happens.”[11] Simply because a rational business would lay a worker off or pay them a less-than-livable wage doesn’t mean that the worker deserves these outcomes. The rise in incomes of the top 1% of “earners” in recent decades, coupled with the relative stagnation of income growth for the bottom 80%, fails to reflect each group’s moral standing.[12] They are simply a result of market and institutional outcomes which deserve further scrutiny, questioning, and correction so that outcomes may better reflect virtuous principles.

We recognize the morally arbitrary nature of market forces. Americans broadly support progressive taxation and a social safety net; we view charity as a moral act to assist the “less fortunate.”[13][14][15] We explicitly provide benefits to the poor–paid for primarily by the rich–because we see market distribution as morally arbitrary. Yet, because of the illusion of merit in the market, we sometimes attach moral significance to incomes when it is convenient, defending claims to “our money” on the basis of hard work, talent, and perseverance.

It is often countered that value-creation, not merit, is what should be rewarded, assigned by the market according to “marginal product.”[16] Economist Greg Mankiw even compares a right to one’s organs with a right to one’s marginal product or the “fruits of of his own labor.”[17] However, even if value creation were the sole criterion for social rewards, determining value creation in a market with specialization and a division of labor is subjective. Jeff Bezos can’t accumulate over $100 billion by himself on a deserted island.

[18] This wealth isn’t a natural part of him like the organs in his body, but the rewards that arise from a complex market system, where products are vastly greater and different than the sum of their parts.[19] Even marginal product fails to properly allocate based on value produced. Philosopher [10]

T.M. Scanlon illustrates this point by explaining the complexities in assigning production between workers and a coordinator who doesn’t directly produce, but whose direction increases worker productivity. Scanlon notes that the coordinator’s marginal product is the difference between what is produced by her direction and what is produced without it.

But he also notes that “the extra quantity of goods produced as a result of this direction is not something ‘produced by’ the person who provides the direction. Rather it is produced by the other workers with her help.”[20] While “marginal product” may be the rational maximum a firm may pay the coordinator, the coordinator doesn’t deserve this salary on the basis of production.

Philosopher and economist Amartya Sen calls marginal product a “useful fiction”–useful in determining how to allocate additional units of inputs, fiction for revealing how much each input has produced.

[21] Particularly in a complex market system, “value-creation” is a poor measure for a just distribution of social rewards, let alone moral standing. Sen gives the example of famines, which aren’t morally justified, even though they might arise from a market system.[22] The only way we can address unfair inequalities is by recognizing that market distributions, however efficient, lack moral weight. We must relinquish the excessive value we place on income and wealth. They aren’t a natural extension of intrinsic worth, but are simply rewards for market-based social cooperation within civic stated-based institutions, valued using state-issued currency and secured through defined property rights. If we continue to attach moral significance to morally arbitrary gains, we’ll continue to wrongly use market incomes as a baseline for fairness. This isn’t a movie, this is the real world, and life is unfair.

So how should we respond to this unfairness? Will we allow it to further develop into deep social divisions, separating citizens by class and status? Or will we counter this unfairness and tie our outcomes closer to individual choices and merit? There is no point in lying to ourselves about this choice anymore.

Featured

role, but so do random factors unassociated with moral desert, including one’s starting position, gifted equipment, natural ability, and steepness of their section of the mountain.

It may be possible to climb from the bottom to the top without these advantages. But the advantaged climber, who starts closer to the top and is equipped with gear to secure her place, has a far greater chance of achieving these mountain-based rewards.

This is not to mention the changes in the mountain’s shape caused by avalanches or erosion, similar to market changes like business life-cycles (creative destruction) or favorable institutions. One may have a better chance of climbing the mountain if their path has been cleared and smoothed out by erosion from previous climbers, while others, like Aron Ralston in 127 Hours, may find their arm crushed by a boulder.[9] Our

[1] Gao, George. "How Do Americans Stand out from the Rest of the World?" Pew Research Center. March 12, 2015. [2] This article is informed by John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press. and 2001. Justice as Fairness. Cambridge: Belknap Press, Thomas Nagel and Liam Murphy. 2004. The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. and T.M. Scanlon.

2018. Why Does Inequality Matter? Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. [3] See the description and critique of “Everyday Libertarianism” in Thomas Nagel and Liam Murphy. 2004. The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pg. 31-37. [4] See the description of “Fair Equality of Opportunity” in John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap. sec. 14. [5] Feldman, Fred, and Brad Skow. "Desert." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. October 09, 2015. [6] Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. "Justice and Bad Luck." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. March 28, 2018. [7] See the description of the “Difference Principle” in John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. (Cambridge: Belknap, 1971) pg. 83. [8] Canepa, Garry. "Why Inequality Matters." Northeastern University Political Review. September 27, 2018. [9] "About Aron Ralston." Aron Ralston. Accessed October 23, 2018. [10] "Salary Data & Career Research Center (United States)." Average Salaries - Job Descriptions - Annual Job Salaries | PayScale. Accessed October 23, 2018. [11] "MOVIE Quote DB." Movie Quotes Database. Accessed October 23, 2018. [12] Terese, Kevin. "The Distribution of Household Income, 2014." Congressional Budget Office. March 19, 2018. [13] Ballard-Rosa, Cameron, Lucy Martin, and Kenneth Scheve. "The Structure Of American Income Tax Policy Preferences". The Journal Of Politics 79 (1): 1-16. 2017. [14] Gramlich, John.

"Few Americans Support Cuts to Most Government Programs." Pew Research Center. May 26, 2017. [15] Sanghera, Balihar. "Charitable Giving And Lay Morality: Understanding Sympathy, Moral Evaluations And Social Positions". The Sociological Review 64 (2): 294-311. 2016. [16] See Friedrich A. Von Hayek and Ronald Hamowy. The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ch.

16. 2011. [17] Mankiw, N. Gregory. "Defending The One Percent". Journal Of Economic Perspectives 27 (3): 21-34. 2013. [18] Kiersz, Andy. "Jeff Bezos Is the Richest Person Alive - Here's How He Makes and Spends His Billions." Business Insider. August 27, 2018. [19] Y. Bar-Yam, General Features of Complex Systems, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS UNESCO Publishers. Oxford, UK, 2002. [20] See T.M. Scanlon.

2018. Why Does Inequality Matter? Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. pg. 128. [21] Sen, Amartya. "Just Deserts." The New York Review of Books. March 04, 1982. [22] Sen, Amartya. "The Moral Standing Of The Market." Social Philosophy And Policy 2 (02): 1. 1985.

nupoliticalreview.com

Fall 2018

21

Featured

Sexual Violence in America: Political Controversy or Public Health Crisis?

JARED HIRSCHFIELD / BIOLOGY & POLITICAL SCIENCE 2020

I

n the midst of the #MeToo movement, sexual harassment and sexual violence in the United States have come to the forefront of social discourse. Over the past year and a half, hundreds of allegations of sexual misconduct have been brought forward against powerful celebrities, politicians, and CEOs.[1] It seemed as though the American public was, for the first time, accepting the terms of basic human decency–that sexual violence under any circumstance is unacceptable and inexcusable. However, this was nothing more than a mirage, a fact made glaringly apparent by the recent confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The controversy surrounding the allegations of sexual assault levied against Justice Kavanaugh spoke volumes about how our nation currently views issues of sexual violence. Sadly, an appropriate response to sexual violence has yet to transcend politics. Much more than a redeemable ethical impropriety, sexual violence has lasting consequences and substantial costs that for too long have been left unspoken, contributing to a drought of targeted, evidence-based solutions. Although recent events seem to suggest otherwise, sexual violence is not a political card to be dealt. Until a solution is created, sexual violence will continue to ravage the minds and bodies of millions of Americans. It is time we start treating sexual violence as the public health crisis it is.

The epidemiological data of sexual violence in the United States are staggering. Almost half (44.6%) of women and roughly one-fifth (22.2%) of men have experienced sexual violence victimization (other than rape) at some point in their lives.[2] It is estimated that approximately 50% of sexual assault victims suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in their lifetime, a far cry from the rate of PTSD in the general U.S. population (8%).[3]

“

Perhaps even more disturbing is the significant impact of sexual violence on health behaviors and outcomes not directly related to the assault. Male and female victims of sexual violence have been shown to have higher rates of excessive alcohol use, pre-obesity Fall 2018

In the year following the first cases of AIDS, the disease was publicized as a “homosexual disorder,” and some even began to consider AIDS a primarily moral issue, a deadly consequence of homosexuality.[7] These regressive and ill-founded views resulted in practically nothing being done to combat the crisis.

Federal government funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention, and treatment programs that first year (FY 1981) totaled a measly $200,000, or roughly $550,000 in today’s dollars.[8] In 1982, after a sudden shift from a focus on morality to an emphasis on human health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) began soliciting support and program development from other government agencies “on the basis of the epidemiological data.”[9] Today, with a federal HIV/AIDS budget of $32 billion (FY 2017), we have reduced the number of new HIV infections by 75%, from 150,000 per year at the epidemic’s peak in the mid-1980’s to 38,500 in 2015.[10][11] While a whole host of other issues, namely homophobia, were undoubtedly at play within the HIV/AIDS issue, solutions arose from the need to solve a crisis of human health–a crisis made unignorable by activists and researchers intent on changing the lens through which the public viewed the issue. A public and a government looking at the issue through the clarifying lens of public health were able to problem-solve in ways unimaginable by those staring through the clouded lens of stigma and partisan politics.

The nation’s response to substance use issues and the opioid epidemic has followed a similar trajectory. The U.S. has been pretending to address the issue of illicit drug use since the Nixon era, when it initiated the since failed War on Drugs.

[12] This predominantly legal response, fueled heavily by racial prejudice, was grounded in the view of drug use as “a moral failing” of the individual.[13] It wasn’t until the epidemic reached a dire new milestone and began to impact a whiter and more affluent population that the public health implications were seriously considered.[14] In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S.[15] After decades devoid of any

Much more than a redeemable ethical impropriety, sexual violence has lasting consequences and substantial costs that for too long have been left unspoken, contributing to a drought of targeted, evidence-based solutions.

[4]

22

and obesity, smoking, and HIV risk factors (IV drug use, treatment for STDs, prostitution, unprotected anal sex).[5] Frequent headaches, difficulty sleeping, and activity limitations are also reported more frequently by victims of sexual violence. Quite simply, victims’ health and quality of life are on average far lower than those who have not been assaulted.

The treatment of these chronic physical and psychological ailments is not without substantial financial costs. In 2014, the lifetime cost of rape was estimated to be over $120,000 per victim, a total cost of almost $3.1 trillion nationwide. The government absorbs approximately one-third ($1 trillion) of this cost, with insurance companies and employers assuming much of the rest.[6] If a new infectious disease or genetic syndrome cost the government $1 trillion, would we not be working aggressively to find solutions? Similar statistics would surely spur Republicans and Democrats alike into immediate action. The current rhetoric surrounding issues of sexual violence is evidently failing to instigate the change we desperately need. History suggests that the power to shift the discussion from worthless excuses to necessary action may lie in the appropriate identification of sexual violence as a public health dilemma.

This is the not first time we have felt the tragic repercussions of treating a public health issue as a matter of solely ethical or political import. The AIDS crisis of the 1980s and the opioid epidemic of late serve as testaments to the surge in public attention, funding, and policy development that can accompany a shift in rhetoric. In both cases, a dissipation of stigma and an acknowledgement of the issues’ grave health implications allowed for more robust scientific, political, and social responses.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

bona fide attempt to combat the health effects Zimbabwe–a nation with a GDP 0.09% that of drug use, the national opioid crisis was of the US–14% of women aged 15-49 report formally declared a public health emergency having experienced sexual violence at some by the U.S. Department of Health and Human point in their lives, compared to roughly Services (HHS) in October 2017.[16] While rates half of women in the United States.[21][22] In are still alarmingly high, overdose deaths have the Philippines, where the Task Force on for the first time in decades begun to fall over Social Science and Reproductive Health has the past six months, due at least in part to the developed training modules for nurses and attention and funding brought by the epidem- medical students on sexual violence, only 6% ic’s elevated status as a public health crisis. of women report having experienced sexual [17] We are still leagues away from eliminating violence.[23] Primary prevention for sexual the stigma and feigned moral concern sur- violence has been consistently proven to work rounding substance use, but a public health but, even in the face of mounting evidence, spotlight aimed at the issue in recent years the U.S. has not prioritized public health has brought about a healthy improvement in research and program development for sexual public opinion. violence.

With the All analogies issue of sexual have their limitations, The AIDS crisis of the 1980s and there is little violence, we are and the opioid epidemic certainly still doubt that the nature stuck in the phase of sexual violence difof late serve as testaments of inaction. The fers from other public to the surge in public amount of fundhealth issues, including and attention ing the AIDS crisis attention, funding, and devoted to sexual and opioid epidemic. policy development that violence research With sexual violence, and prevention we are not discusscan accompany a shift in is grossly inconing the outbreak of rhetoric.

In both cases, a sistent with its something new as dissipation of stigma and rightful status as with AIDS, nor are we a public health discussing issues of an acknowledgement of issue.

Health legality as with drug the issues’ grave health problems tradiuse (although crimtionally considinal enforcement of implications allowed for ered as public sexual violence in the more robust scientific, health issues, U.S. is depressingly such as cardiovasunreliable). We are political, and social cular disease and discussing a scourge responses. cancer, receive possessing an entirely disproportionunique set of drivers ately more funding than sexual violence and dynamics. We would be doing the issue despite having a smaller economic impact. a massive disservice to disregard the role that Rape and attempted rape have 1.7 times the socially reinforced gender inequities and annual economic impact of cardiovascu- power imbalances play in propagating sexual lar disease, yet receive one-hundredth the violence. However, these drivers and public amount of NIH research funding ($18 million health considerations are not necessarily vs. $1.96 billion).[18] The ratio of annual public mutually exclusive. A public health approach spending to economic burden for the rape and and resulting interventions could begin to attempted rape of women is a dismal 0.09%, a attack these toxic phenomena, many of which figure that would be even lower if it accounted are structurally rooted in our society.

In an ideal world, it shouldn’t matter which for other forms of sexual violence.[19] Public health programs have been used angle is used to discuss a crisis as horrendous effectively in other countries, some much and widespread as sexual violence in the U.S. less economically developed than the U.S. None of this is to say that sexual violence is Nongovernmental organizations in Zimbabwe not a moral issue–it is. But it is also a profound have used public meetings and debates, tele- health issue, and approaching it as such may vision, and even theater to prevent sexual be the impetus needed to unite politicians, violence through awareness campaigns in researchers, community activists, and the which survivors share their stories.[20] In public toward a common goal. The rhetorical

“

”

nupoliticalreview.com

life cycles of similar issues and the success of public health interventions abroad confirm that sexual violence deserves the same attention, funding, and research afforded to all other major public health issues.

Many victims of sexual violence suffer their whole lives from a harsh reality of debilitating health problems and unaffordable health care

“

A public and a government looking at the issue through the clarifying lens of public health were able to problem-solve in ways unimaginable by those staring through the clouded lens of stigma and partisan politics.

”

costs. It is this reality that we must begin to seriously acknowledge and address. When people’s lives and wellbeing are at stake, the only acceptable political debate is about how to most effectively and expediently solve the problem. The time to start that debate is not tomorrow or 2020–it is now.

[1] “Sexual Harassment and Assault Allegations List.” Vox. Updated October 8, 2018. [2] Black, Michele, et al. “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report.” National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). November 2011. [3] Creamer, Mark, et al. “Post-traumatic stress disorder: findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being.” Psychological Medicine (31), 1237-47. 2010. [4] Chivers-Wilson, Kaitlin. “Sexual assault and post-traumatic stress disorder: A review of the biological, psychological and sociological factors and treatment.” McGill Journal of Medicine 9(2), 111-18. 2006. [5] Smith, Sharon G. and Matthew J. Breiding. “Chronic disease and health behaviors linked to experiences of non-consensual sex among men and women.” Public Health 125(9), 653-59. 2011. [6] Peterson, C., et al. “Lifetime Economic Burden of Rape Among U.S. Adults.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 52(6), 691-701. 2017. [7] “The AIDS Epidemic: 1981-1987.” The New York Times. Accessed October 27, 2018. [8] Johnson, Judith and Sharon Coleman. “AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY2005.” Congressional Research Service. Updated April 21, 2004.

[9] Curran, James and Harold Jaffe. “AIDS: the Early Years and CDC’s Response.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 07, 2011.

[10] “HIV and AIDS --- United States, 1981-2000.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. June 01, 2001. [11] “HIV in the United States: At A Glance.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed October 27, 2018. [12] “A Brief History of the Drug War.” Drug Policy Alliance.

Accessed October 28, 2018. [13] Dasgupta, Nabarun, et al. “Opioid Crisis: No Easy Fix to Its Social and Economic Determinants.” American Journal of Public Health 108(2), 182-86. 2018. [14] Tache, Joe. “The Overlooked Racial Complexities of the Opioid Epidemic.” Northeastern University Political Review. June 21, 2016. [15] Wolff, M. “Fact Sheet: The Opioid Overdose Epidemic in the United States.” Cornell University Weill Medical College. Updated April 05, 2018. [16] HHS Press Office. “HHS Acting Secretary Declares Public Health Emergency to Address National Opioid Crisis.” HHS.gov. October 26, 2017. [17] Joseph, Andrew. “Overdose deaths have fallen for six months. Is it temporary or a sign of a corner turned?”

STAT. October 23, 2018. [18] Waechter, Randall and Van Ma. “Sexual Violence in America: Public Funding and Social Priority.” American Journal of Public Health 105(12), 2430-37. 2015. [19] Ibid. [20] “World report on violence and health.” World Health Organization. 2002. [21] “Zimbabwe: Country Profile.” World Bank. 2017. [22] Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency & ICF International. “Zimbabwe: Demographic and Health Survey 2015.” 2015. [23] Philippines Statistics Authority & ICF International.

“Philippines: Demographic and Health Survey 2013.” 2013.

Fall 2018

23

Columns

GARRY CANEPA / POLITICAL SCIENCE & ECONOMICS 2019

W

ithout policy recommendations, complaints about economic inequality are as empty as complaints about the weather. We can criticize market outcomes and their adverse impacts, as I did in my second and first articles respectively.[1][2] However, without an agenda for our elected officials, this criticism will remain in the realm of discussion, instead of actually improving our nation. The three policies I will examine are an Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, a jobs guarantee, and a system of universal basic assets. Each proposal discusses policy and politics.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Policy: This tax code feature offers low-and-middle-income working households, especially those with children, a sizable federal-tax reduction, in turn supplementing their wages.

Since it is refundable, participants may even receive income without paying federal taxes, allowing the tax credit to double as a spending program. While programs like Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) receive plenty of attention, the EITC has quietly become our largest program of income redistribution and poverty alleviation.[3][4] In 2015, the EITC, along with the Child Tax Credit, lifted nearly 10 million Americans out of poverty and reduced the poverty of 20 million more.[5] The EITC has improved educational outcomes and nutrition for children of low-income parents and increased labor participation, especially for single mothers.[6] [7] This helps to explain why states with more generous EITCs also have more economic mobility, a measurement of opportunity.[8] The EITC phases in as one earns more income, plateaus further down the income scale, and phases out for wealthy earners. In this way, EITC benefits encourage work. Yet the EITC is small, restricted mainly to working

“

24

Fall 2018

households with children. Even then the credit maxes out at about $6,000.[9] An expanded and more generous EITC would extend benefits to more households and provide greater support to current participants.

Politics: The EITC is respected on both sides of the aisle–by Democrats as a redistributive tax credit and by Republicans for encouraging work and aligning more closely with a tax cut than a government spending program. Barack Obama and Paul Ryan proposed similar EITC expansions, particularly for childless adults who benefit least from the credit.[10] A House bill proposed in September

be a huge step for economic justice.

With the fall of union power, decline of easy-to-automate middle-class jobs, and rising importance of the “fissured workplace” (temp-work, gig economy, subcontracting) it is vital to give workers new employment avenues and bargaining power.[15][16][17] Not even “full employment” has generated wage growth, likely due to the low-quality jobs created over the past decade.[18] Unlike other job programs, a guarantee also addresses labor-market discrimination, including discrimination against people of color, ex-offenders, the long-term unemployed, and the elderly.[19][20] [21][22] A JG sets a floor for labor standards, creates a de-facto minimum wage, and includes health care, paid family leave, and mandated vacation time, among other benefits. A JG is a sweeping progressive reform for a fairer America, tackling multiple economic issues at once.

A JG’s benefits would also address the social issues created by long-term unemployment.

Work is often more than just a source of income, but also one of dignity, self-worth, and social engagement.[23] Accounting for joblessness-created social ills, such as mental health and urban decay, allows us to view unemployment as more than just a fall in GDP or a tradeoff with inflation.[24][25][26][27][28] Instead we can value employment as a vital source of human worth and community development, something ensured for all citizens. Rather than viewing unemployment as a natural market function, we can view it as a fundamental social failure in need of correction.

The program is expensive, but, according to a Levy Institute report, reductions in existing spending programs like the EITC and TANF from a JG would reduce the program’s price to $260-350 billion.[29] The report also suggests a JG could even pay for itself when factoring in unemployment's social costs like crime and

A JG would allow lawmakers to focus less on this inefficient and ineffective “jobs program,” yielding a potent policy tool to create decent jobs for Americans seeking work, rather than having them race to the bottom for the benefit of the rich.

2017 would roughly double EITC benefits for parents and raise them far higher for childless adults, expanding the credit’s power to enhance opportunity and alleviate poverty.[11] Jobs Guarantee (JG) Policy: A JG would guarantee a job to every American seeking one.[12] It would be publicly financed and locally administered, focusing especially on areas often neglected by the market–environmental preservation, community involvement, and care services. The resulting jobs, per several ambitious proposals, would pay $15 dollars an hour and include generous benefits.[13] The program is predicted to hire 15 million workers and cost the federal government over $500 billion annually.[14] By combining a right to work with socially valuable employment and redistribution, a JG can

”

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

health deterioration. A pilot program would also help reveal a JG’s administrative feasibility and its impact on the private sector, among the program’s main criticisms.[30] Politics: Currently, at least six senators expected to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination support some form of job guarantee.[31] A JG has received widespread media attention and versions have been proposed by Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker, whose bill would create a JG pilot program.

[32][33] If Democrats retake Congress and the White House in 2020, a federal jobs program, although not necessarily a JG, may materialize sooner than expected.

A JG is more feasible than some may think; variations have been implemented in India and Argentina.[34][35] Even political compromise on federal jobs programs short of a JG would be welcome steps towards full and decent employment. This includes the Center of American Progress’ proposal for a jobs guarantee for workers without college degrees or a renewal of the TANF Emergency Fund, a public employment program with more than a quarter-million workers at its peak in 2010.

[36][37] A public works program, on par with the New Deal’s Work Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corp, can help guarantee employment, freeing it from the private sector business cycle.

While a JG has attracted conservative and liberal critics, what is often overlooked is that states and local governments already have job programs known as “targeted tax nupoliticalreview.com

incentives.”[38][39] These specialized business tax breaks–Amazon’s HQ2 being a large example–are often zero-sum and fail to generate net employment.[40][41] Instead they often create market inefficiencies and force subnational governments to rely more on regressive taxation–burdening low-income residents disproportionately–while cutting business taxes.[42][43] These are more successful at providing giveaways to the wealthy than spurring job growth.[44] A JG would allow lawmakers to focus less on this inefficient and ineffective “jobs program,” yielding a potent policy tool to create decent jobs for Americans seeking work, rather than having them race to the bottom for the benefit of the rich.[45] Already, 46% of Americans support a JG, even though this policy has only recently achieved widespread legislative consideration. While ambitious, it is a logical extension of America’s view of work as opportunity.

[46] As stated by economist Jared Bernstein: “If you believe that work should be a ladder out of poverty for able-bodied adults, then you must be willing to provide the working poor with enough jobs of requisite quality to back up that goal.”[47] Universal Basic Assets (UBA) Policy: UBA would entitle every citizen to a fixed share of American assets. The federal government would create an investment fund similar to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). However, unlike the SSTF, it would consist of a diverse portfolio of private-sector assets, including stocks, bonds, and real

estate. All citizens would be entitled to a share of the socially owned index fund.

UBA can provide dividends to shareholders, acting as a type of universal basic income.

[48] It can also be a minimum inheritance, entitling citizens to an asset bundle to do with as they please once they reach a certain age.

[49] Not only would UBA address wealth and income inequality, but it could hedge against long-term social risks–including job automation and climate change–by linking the fund to intellectual property rights and carbon taxes respectively.[50][51] UBA would resemble Alaska’s Permanent Fund–which since 1982 has issued residents $1,000 to $2,000 annual dividends from its oil revenues–and the sovereign wealth funds of oil-rich nations like Norway and Kuwait, and resource-rich U.S. states like Texas and Wyoming.[52] This policy would make Americans more direct stakeholders in the economy, combating extreme concentration in financial wealth and allowing for wide distribution of economic gains. Financial wealth ownership would help Americans become asset-owners while avoiding the drawbacks of owning real estate–unfortunately the primary asset of most American households.[53][54] This century has been marked by volatile movements in median household wealth and increasing wealth inequality, particularly along racial lines.[55] While the gains in wealth since the Great Recession have largely accrued to the top 1% of owners, the bottom half of Fall 2018

25

Columns

owners have barely recovered from the decimation of their net worth by the recent housing crash. Currently, the top 1% own 40% of our nation’s wealth, surpassing the net worth of the bottom 90%.[56] As income gains concentrate at the top, middle-class Americans face increasing debt. While news outlets report the latest stock market boom, half of Americans are entirely left out from these gains, with the benefits accruing primarily to the top 10%.[57] Despite positive economic indicators like low unemployment and relatively strong growth, financial insecurity among Americans remains high.[58] Many must resort to selling personal possessions at pawn-shops or taking on high-interest payday loans during times of financial distress, times all too common for low-income Americans.[59] A UBA would provide a buffer, entitling Americans to a portfolio of assets which they can save, use for collateral to obtain loans, or simply cash out when they need liquidity.

Politics: While a UBA has been floated among think tanks and policy makers for some time, in October Senator Cory Booker proposed a universal child inheritance or “baby bonds.”[60] This would provide each child a financial nest-egg at birth–supplemented with government payments based

on family income–which would accumulate until the account holder gains access to their “inherited” wealth at age 18.

For now the plan risks remaining a liberal fringe idea. But, as stated by economist James Buchanan: “When I look to the future, I’m a pessimist. But when I look the past, I’m an optimist.”[61] A UBA would follow in the footsteps of previous policies focused on social ownership. This can be traced as far back as Thomas Paine’s 1797 pamphlet “Agrarian Justice,” which proposed a basic inheritance financed by a land tax.[62] The 19th century witnessed the Harrison Land Act of 1800 and the Homestead Act of 1865, which democratized land holdings by allowing average Americans to purchase land directly from the federal government, in sharp contrast to old Europe’s landed elite.[63] The 20th century was the era of homeownership, beginning with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) of 1934. The FHA helped to secure mortgage financing for working-and-middle-class families, allowing them to leave their cramped urban dwellings to become suburban homeowners. The FHA encouraged the now-common practices of long-term mortgages with fixed interest rates, low down payments, and amortization (reducing principal debt through regularly scheduled payments), playing a major role

in America’s suburbanization.[64] However this policy of mortgage expansion excluded people of color, who even today face lower returns from real estate due to housing discrimination, among the many pitfalls of homeownership.[65] The 21st century could be the century of finance if all Americans become stakeholders in their nation’s economy, encouraging widespread financial literacy and opportunity through wealth accumulation for the least advantaged. As the stock market breaks new records, these developments shouldn’t be restricted to a select few, but should benefit society as a whole.

These three policies, focusing on income, employment, and ownership, can bring the United States forward to outcomes determined by merit and choices rather than birth lottery and social circumstances, which would serve the common good rather than the fortunate few. For decades, the U.S. has lagged behind other developed nations in advancing economic justice, despite its former place as leader from the early to mid 20th century.[66] These and similar programs can allow us to lead the world through example once more, proving our commitment to opportunity and shared prosperity.

[1] Canepa, Garry. "Is the Market Moral?" Northeastern University Political Review. October 18, 2018.[2] Canepa, Garry. "Why Inequality Matters." Northeastern University Political Review. September 27, 2018. [3] Alstott, Anne L. “Why the EITC Doesn't Make Work Pay.” Law and Contemporary Problems 73(1): 285-314. 2010. [4] Kneebone, Elizabeth. "Economic Recovery and the EITC: Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to Benefit Families and Places." Brookings. January 26, 2009. [5] Horton, Emily. "EITC, CTC Together Lifted 9.8 Million out of Poverty in 2015." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. October 19, 2016. [6] "Chart Book: The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit."

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. May 24, 2016. [7] Smith, Noah. "Earned Income Tax Credit Is a Cheap Way to Beat Poverty." Bloomberg.com. October 1, 2018. [8] Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez. "Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19843. June 2014. [9] "Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. April 19, 2018. [10] Marr, Chuck. "EITC Could Be Important Win for Obama and Ryan." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. November 16, 2015. [11] U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna.

"RELEASE: SEN. SHERROD BROWN AND REP. RO KHANNA INTRODUCE LANDMARK LEGISLATION TO RAISE THE WAGES OF WORKING FAMILIES." News release, September 13, 2017. [12] Tcherneva, Pavlina. "Job Guarantee FAQ." Pavlina-tcherneva. Accessed November 03, 2018. [13] Lowrey, Annie. "A Promise So Big, Democrats Aren't Sure How to Keep It." The Atlantic. May 11, 2018. [14] Paul, Mark, William Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton. "The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full Employment." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. March 9, 2018. [15] Bivens, Josh, et al. "How Today's Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers the Power to Improve Their Jobs and Unrig the Economy." Economic Policy Institute. August 24, 2017. [16] Cortes, Guido Matias, Nir Jaimovich and Henry E. Siu. "Disappearing routine jobs: Who, how, and why?" Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol.

91(C), pages 69-87. 2017. [17] Weil, David. Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became so Bad for so Many and What Can Be Done to Improve It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017. [18] Katz, Lawrence, and Alan Krueger. "The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015." Princeton University Working Paper #603, September 2016. [19] Pager, Devah, Bart Bonikowski, and Bruce Western. "Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market." American Sociological Review 74, no. 5 (2009): 777-99. [20] Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll. “Employment barriers facing ex-offenders.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 2003. [21] Plumer, Brad. "Companies Won't Even Look at Resumes of the Long-term Unemployed." The Washington Post. April 15, 2013. [22] Levitz, Jennifer, and Philip Shishkin. "More Workers Cite Age Bias After Layoffs." The Wall Street Journal.

March 11, 2009. [23] Peck, Don. "How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America." The Atlantic. March 2010. [24] Kolesnikova, Natalia A., and Yang Liu. "Jobless Recoveries: Causes and Consequences." St. Louis Fed. April 2011. [25] Linn M.W., Sandifer R., Stein S. Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health. American Journal of Public Health. 1985. [26] Wilson, William Julius. "When Work Disappears." Political Science Quarterly 111, no. 4: 567-95.

1996. [27] Investopedia Staff. "Okun's Law." Investopedia. August 02, 2018. [28] Investopedia Staff. "Phillips Curve." Investopedia. October 21, 2018. [29] Wray, L. Randall, Flavia Dantas, Scott Fullwiler, Pavlina R. Tcherneva, and Stephanie A. Kelton. “Public Service Employment: A Path to Full Employment”. Levy Institute Research Project Report. 2018. [30] Smith, Noah. "A Federal Job Guarantee for Everyone? Be Skeptical." Bloomberg. July 10, 2018. [31] Kaufman, Alexander C. "Democrats' 'Jobs For All' Proposal Is More Popular When The Jobs Are Green." The Huffington Post. September 06, 2018. [32] Stein, Jeff. "Bernie Sanders to Announce Plan to Guarantee Every American a Job." The Washington Post. April 23, 2018. [33] U.S. Senator Cory Booker. "New Booker Bill Seeks to Establish Model for Federal Jobs Guarantee Program in High-Unemployment Communities." News release. April 20, 2018. [34] Scofield, Jerri-Lynn. "What India Can Teach the US About a Federal Job Guarantee." Naked Capitalism. May 06, 2018. [35] Wray, L. Randall. "MMP Blog #47: The JG / ELR and Real World Experience." New Economic Perspectives.

April 22, 2012. [36] Tanden, Neera, Carmel Martin, Marc Jarsulic, Brendan Duke, Ben Olinsky, Melissa Boteach, John Halpin, Ruy Teixeira, and Rob Griffin. "Toward a Marshall Plan for America." Center for American Progress. May 16, 2017. [37] Pavetti, Ladonna, Liz Schott, and Elizabeth Lower-Basch. "Creating Subsidized Employment Opportunities for Low-Income Parents." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. February 16, 2011. [38] Worstall, Tim. "The Terrible Idea Of A Government Job Guarantee." Forbes. May 20, 2017. [39] Baker, Dean. "Dems' Job Guarantee Isn't Nearly as Easy as It Sounds | Op-Eds & Columns." CEPR. April 27, 2018. [40] Garfield, Leanna. "Cities Are Throwing Hundreds of Millions at Amazon to Land HQ2 - Here's How They Stack up." Business Insider. April 04, 2018. [41] Prillaman, Soledad Artiz, and Kenneth J. Meier. "Taxes, Incentives, and Economic Growth: Assessing the Impact of Pro-business Taxes on U.S. State Economies." The Journal of Politics 76, no. 2: 364-79. 2014. [42] Robyn, Mark. "The Problem with Targeted Tax Incentives." Tax Foundation. July 20, 2011. [43] Wiehe, Meg, Aidan Davis, Carl Davis, Lisa Gee, Dylan Grundman, and Matt Gardner. "Who Pays? 6th Edition." Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2018. [44] Lynch, Robert G. "Rethinking Growth Strategies: How State and Local Taxes and Services Affect Economic Development." Economic Policy Institute. 2004. [45] Brunori, David. “The Limits of Justice: The Struggle for Tax Justice in the States.” In Tax Justice: The Ongoing Debate. edited by Dennis J. Ventry and Joseph J. Thorndike, pg. 193-219. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2002. [46] Rasmussen Poll. "46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All." Rasmussen Reports. April 30, 2018. [47] Bernstein, Jared. "The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities October 11, 2017. [48] Varoufakis, Yanis. "The Universal Right to Capital Income by Yanis Varoufakis." Project Syndicate. October 31, 2016. [49] Atkinson, Anthony Barnes. “Capital Shared.” In Inequality: What Can Be Done. pg. 155-178. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. [50] Smith, Noah. "Robot Takeover Matters Less If We're All Shareholders." Bloomberg.com. December 5, 2017.

[51] Schiller, Ben. "Universal Basic Assets Could Be The Foundation To Build An Equitable Society." Fast Company. April 16, 2018. [52] Verge, Beth. "How Much Was It Worth? PFD Amounts, past and Present." KTUU. April 13, 2017.

[53] Frankel, Jeffrey. "The Case Against Subsidizing Housing Debt by Jeffrey Frankel." Project Syndicate. May 29, 2017. [54] "The Distribution of Asset Holdings and Capital Gains." Congressional Budget Office. August 4, 2016. [55] Wolff, Edward. "Household Wealth Trends in the United States, 1962 to 2016: Has Middle Class Wealth Recovered?" NBER Working Paper No. 24085. 2017. [56] Ingraham, Christopher. "The Richest 1 Percent Now Owns More of the Country's Wealth than at Any Time in the past 50 Years." The Washington Post. December 06, 2017. [57] Bernstein, Jared. "Yes, Stocks Are Up. But 80 Percent of the Value Is Held by the Richest 10 Percent." The Washington Post.

March 02, 2017. [58] Lusardi, Annamaria, Daniel Schneider, and Peter Tufano. "Financially Fragile Households: Evidence and Implications." NBER Working Paper No. 17072. 2011. [59] Hannagan, Anthony, and Jonathan Morduch.

“Income Gains and Month-to-Month Income Volatility: Household Evidence from the U.S. Financial Diaries.” NYU Wagner Research Paper 2659883. 2015. [60] Kliff, Sarah. "An Exclusive Look at Cory Booker's Plan to Fight Wealth Inequality: Give Poor Kids Money." Vox. October 22, 2018. [61] Roberts, Russ. "The World Turned Upside Down (and What to Do about It)." Medium. September 12, 2017. [62] Paine, Thomas. ‘‘Agrarian Justice.’’ 1795. [63] Powell, Kimberly. "Timeline of U.S. Public Land Acts and Legislation." ThoughtCo. September 19, 2018. [64] DeLong, Bradford and Stephen S. Cohen. “The Long Age of Eisenhower.” In Concrete Economics: The Hamilton Approach to Economic Growth and Policy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016. [65] Sullivan, Laura, Tatjana Meschede, Lars Dietrich, Thomas Shapiro, Amy Traub, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Taara Draut. "The Racial Wealth Gap: Why policy matters." New York, NY: Demos. 2015. [66] Ferrie, Joseph. "The End of American Exceptionalism? Mobility in the U.S. Since 1850." Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, no. 3: 199-215. 2005.

26

Fall 2018

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

The Battle of Hodeidah and the World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis JOHN ROARTY / POLITICAL SCIENCE 2021 The prominent theme of the Yemeni Civil War has unfortunately been extreme famine.

It is another example of a poor, vulnerable population caught in the middle of a deadly clash. In fact, Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East, with a per capita GDP of just $1,300, according to 2017 estimates.[1] Syria’s GDP per capita, by comparison, is over double that. Three years into the war, most news coming out of Yemen is about this widespread hunger. According to the United Nations, 22.2 million people are in need of humanitarian aid, including food and medicine.[2] Of that 22.2 million, 8.4 million people are at severe risk of starvation. Save the Children, a UK-based non-profit, reports that close to “35,000 malnourished children could…die in Yemen where obstructions to deliveries of food and medicine by all sides…have pushed the country to the brink of famine.”[3] Reporters describe a Yemen in which civilians are “cooking leaves” to survive, scrambling for any form of food to sustain them.[4] Global news coverage of the brutal war often features a photo of a malnourished child, ribs visible beneath paper-thin skin.

Civilian access to food and medical supplies has been devastated by the breakdown of infrastructure during this power struggle.

Currently, pro-government forces are trying to cut off rebel access to the crucial seaport at Hodeidah, which, in the past, provided 70% of the country’s imports of humanitarian aid, food, and fuel to surrounding civilians.[5] The two primary belligerents of the civil war are the Yemeni government and the “Houthis,” a rebel group that managed to capture Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in 2015. The Houthis are followers of the late Hussein

Badreddin al-Houthi, a Zaidi religious leader in northern Yemen who disagreed with the government’s effort to “please the United States.”[6] The conflict began as a small-scale protest in the summer of 2004, but quickly escalated when hundreds of al-Houthi’s followers were arrested and killed.[7][8] For the next decade, the Houthis periodically fought with the government; small amounts of fighting alternated with standstills. They

“

nupoliticalreview.com

The apparent indifference for civilian lives has left a sizable population in limbo; millions are in need of assistance.

But relief remains out of reach so long as the power struggle continues.

from the government. After the government decided to end its fuel subsidy program in an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), public support for President Hadi dropped dramatically.[10] According to The Guardian, “The [Yemeni] government’s decision to slash fuel subsidies [had] caused discontent, with protests…calling for the cuts to be reversed and the government to be dissolved.”[11] The Houthis were major participants in these protests, calling for a more technocratic government, and pledging to continue protesting until the changes were made.[12] Al Jazeera wrote in 2014 that “although many Yemenis are concerned about the Houthis' precipitous rise…they also broadly agree with al-Houthi's criticisms of the…government and back [al-Houthi’s] demands.”[13] This small amount of public support gave the Houthis what they needed to move inward, creating larger protests and putting more pressure on the government.[14] The conflict became a full blown civil war when Houthi rebels took the capital, Sanaa, and ousted the government in power.[15] In February 2015, the Houthis shut down parliament and forced the resignation of President Hadi, who went into exile in Saudi Arabia.[16] Dr. Theodore Karasik, Senior Advisor to Gulf State Analytics, wrote at the time that “the fall of Sanaa will [be] as significant as the rush of ISIS into Iraq.”[17] It’s significant that President Hadi took refuge in Saudi Arabia, as the Saudis would later lead the fight against the Houthis.

The Houthis eventually made their way to Aden, a southern port city in Yemen, effectively taking control of the entire western third of the country.[18] In late March 2015, in support of the Hadi government, Saudi Arabia

”

found success whenever the government misstepped. Each time the government tried to alienate the Houthis politically, the public gave the Houthis more support. According to the West Point Combating Counterterrorism Center, beginning in 2005, “the numbers of Houthi movement fighters swelled in response to government errors” such as these.

[9]

Finally, in 2014, Houthi insurgents found an opportunity to take large-scale territory

Fall 2018

27

Columns and a coalition of neighboring countries began launching airstrikes against the Houthis in an effort to stop their territorial gains.[19] Since starting the campaign, the pro-Hadi coalition has targeted local infrastructure in particular.

The U.S., a longtime ally of Saudi Arabia, was initially supportive of the coalition’s mission.

At the time, U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement that the “United States strongly condemns ongoing military actions taken by the Houthis against the elected government of Yemen,” and that the Houthis should “halt immediately their destabilizing military actions and return to negotiations.”[20] However, what has since occured in Yemen is airstrike after airstrike, with little progress being made.[21][22] This has caused the U.S. to become more cautious about publicly supporting the coalition, calling recently for a ceasefire in Yemen.[23] What began as a hopeful campaign to reinstall President Hadi quickly became an internationally criticized operation. In May 2015, the Saudis declared the entire Yemeni province of Saada a military target, prompting thousands of civilians to flee due to the possibility of airstrikes.[24] One month later, Human Rights Watch declared the Saudi airstrikes “unlawful,” saying that the strikes damaged or destroyed civilian markets, homes, and a school, without evidence that they were being used for military purposes.[25] In one incident, bombs dropped on civilians killed 27 members of a single family, including 17 children.[26] The

“

28

Fall 2018

Saudi’s militant action in Saada sparked international criticism, which has only grown as the war continues. A UN report from August 2018 accused the governments in the coalition of human rights violations.[27] The report alleges violations of the right to “an adequate standard of living and…health” as well as the use of “arbitrary detention [and] torture.” The apparent indifference for civilian lives has left a sizable population in limbo; millions are in need of assistance. But relief remains out of reach so long as the power struggle continues.

[28]

cholera hit.”[32] Cholera is a preventable disease, given that clean water is available. Once clean water ran out in Sanaa, the outbreak was almost immediate.

Compounding the effects of the outbreak, widespread hunger has crippled the population. There are two variables affecting hunger in Yemen: food availability and the capacity to pay for it. According to Jane Ferguson of The New Yorker, “There is sufficient food arriving in ports [in Yemen], but endemic unemployment means that almost two-thirds of the population struggle to buy the food their families need.”[33] The Yemeni currency, the riyal, has lost half its value to the dollar since the start of the war, prompting an enormous spike in price of food.[34] Ferguson continues, “In this way, hunger here is entirely man-made: no drought or blight has caused it.”

The coinciding crises of disease and hunger will worsen as the coalition attempts to take back the city of Hodeidah. Located on Yemen’s western coast, Hodeidah has been a vital port, providing food and medicine to places like Sanaa. After taking back Yemen’s southern port city Aden, the coalition is hoping to stop all imports to Houthi territory. But according to a U.N. Humanitarian Affairs official, “Yemen is almost entirely reliant on imports for food, fuel, and medicines,” meaning that cutting off Hodeidah would render a third of the country without resources.[35] However, Hodeidah is also likely the main entry point for the Houthis’ weapons

Cutting off this port is critical for the Hadi government to win the war. But doing this wouldn't just block supplies for the rebels; it would block vital resources for the millions of people living under Houthi control.

Further harming the Yemeni citizens, an outbreak of cholera began in the country in late 2016. The World Health Organization estimated over 100,000 cases in the first eight months; less than two months later, the number of cases had doubled.[29][30] In contrast with a country with mass access to clean water, there were only 11 cases of cholera in the United States that same year.[31] The outbreak was a direct result of the critical damage to Yemen’s infrastructure; airstrikes had demolished the Houthi-occupied country’s roads and waterways. In one example from the BBC, “the sewer system [in Sanaa] stopped working on 17 April [2017]. Ten days later,

”

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

(including, allegedly, missiles from Iran).[36] [37] Cutting off this port is critical for the Hadi government to win the war. But doing this wouldn't just block supplies for the rebels; it would block vital resources for the millions of people living under Houthi control. This next stage of the war, the battle to take back Hodeidah, will worsen the humanitarian problems in Yemen that are already so severe.

The little medical aid finding its way into western Yemen will drop significantly, allowing many more to be killed by violence or by treatable diseases like cholera. The little food being imported, though expensive, will also dwindle, further starving a population already struggling to eat.

Consistent with the coalition’s strategy, the campaign to retake Hodeidah has featured many airstrikes. An attack on October 24th, 2018 killed 21 civilians at a vegetable market, including two children.[38] Another strike eleven days earlier killed 17, including eight members of a single family.[39] Since the siege began, the cost of feeding a family has doubled, while incomes have halved.[40] As the struggle to take the city continues, it will only become harder to acquire food and medicine.

The Yemeni Civil War has gone by a few other names. The U.N. calls it the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” while others call it the “war the world forgot.”[41][42] Stories from the war paint an image of millions starving, waiting for the day when the Houthis and the Hadi government cease fighting. The Council on Foreign Relations lists the conflict as “worsening,” and with the blockade on Hodeidah, few expect the situation to improve.[43] What’s clear is that the civilians caught in the middle of it need new international actors to step in. The World Health Organization asked in August for a temporary ceasefire in order to vaccinate Yemenis living near Hodeidah.[44] The UN has been trying to negotiate a deal between the Hadi government and the Houthis. If a more influential actor like the United States were to get involved, real progress might be made. The U.S. may be able to pressure Saudi Arabia into considering the lives of Yemeni citizens, calling for less reckless airstrikes or to allow for vaccinations. But until that happens, Yemen will continue to be the war the world forgot.

[1] The World Factbook. “Country Comparison: GDP Per Capita.” CIA. Accessed October 29, 2018. [2] “2018 Yemen High-Level Pledging Event.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed October 29, 2018. [3] “Extreme hunger could kill 600,000 children in war zones this year.” Save the Children. September 10, 2018. [4] Simmons, Andrew. “‘We’re cooking leaves’: Civilians caught in Yemen’s war.” Al Jazeera. September 17, 2018. [5] “‘Dozens killed’ in Hodeidah attacks after peace talks collapse.” Al Jazeera. September 09, 2018. [6] “Yemeni forces kill rebel cleric.”

BBC News. September 10, 2004. [7] “Yemen profile - timeline.” BBC News. November 05, 2018. [8] “Houthis - Six Wars - 2004-2009.” Global Security.

Accessed October 29, 2018. [9] Knights, Michael. “The Houthi War Machine: From Guerilla War to State Capture.” West Point Combating Counterterrorism Center. September 2018. [10] “Yemen fuel subsidy cut drives poorest deeper into poverty.” The Guardian. August 26, 2014. [11] Ibid. [12] Salisbury, Peter. “Yemen’s Houthis expand presence in capital.” Al Jazeera. August 22, 2014. [13] Ibid. [14] Greenfield, Danya and Svetlana Milbert. “Protests in Yemen Expose Weak Governance and Poor Economic Planning.” Atlantic Council. September 02, 2014. [15] al Sanani, Nasim. “In Pictures: Houthis take over Sanaa.” September 27, 2014. [16] al-Mujahed, Ali. “Houthi rebels shut down parliament, tightening their control.” The Washington Post. February 06, 2015. [17] Karasik, Theodore. “The fall of Sanaa: What Next for Yemen?” Al Arabiya. September 23, 2014. [18] Shaheen, Kareem. “Yemen: Houthi fighters ‘seize presidential palace’ in battle for Aden.” The Guardian. April 02, 2015. [19] Almsay, Steve and Jason Hanna. “Saudi Arabia launches airstrikes in Yemen.” CNN. March 26, 2015. [20] “Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on the Situation in Yemen.” The White House Office of the Press Secretary. March 25, 2015. [21] “Number of United States airstrikes in Yemen between 2002 and 2008.” Statista. Accessed October 29, 2018. [22] Nebehay, Stephanie. “Some Saudi-led coalition air strikes in Yemen may amount to war crimes: U.N.” Reuters. August 28, 2018. [23] “Yemen war: US presses Saudi Arabia to agree ceasefire.” BBC News. October 31, 2018. [24] Ghobari, Mohammed and Mohammed Mukhashaf. “Saudi-led coalition bombs Houthis in north Yemen, offers five-day truce.” Reuters. May 08, 2015. [25] “Yemen: Unlawful Airstrikes Kill Dozens of Civilians.” Human Rights Watch. June 30, 2015. [26] Ibid. [27] Neuman, Scott. “U.N. Experts: Some Saudi-Led Airstrikes in Yemen Could Be War Crimes.” NPR. August 28, 2018. [28] “Yemen.”

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Accessed October 29, 2018. [29] “Cholera Situation in Yemen.” World Health Organization. May 2017. [30] “Yemen faces world’s worst cholera outbreak - UN.” BBC News. June 25, 2017. [31] “Cholera, 2017.” World Health Organization.

September 21, 2018. [32] Bruwer, Johannes. “The horror of Yemen’s spiralling cholera crisis.” BBC News. June 25, 2017. [33] Ferguson, Jane. “Is Intentional Starvation the Future of War?” The New Yorker. July 11, 2018. [34] “Yemeni president fires PM over poor economic performance.” Al Jazeera. October 16, 2018. [35] “Yemen at risk of ‘big famine’: UN humanitarian chief.” Al Jazeera. October 24, 2018. [36] “Hodeidah ‘cholera cases triple after Saudi-UAE offensive’: Report.” Al Jazeera. October 01, 2018. [37] Talley, Ian. “U.S. Widens Iran Sanctions for Supplying Missiles to Yemen’s Houthis.” Wall Street Journal. May 22, 2018. [38] “Yemen: Death toll from Saudi raid on vegetable market rises to 21.” Al Jazeera. October 25, 2018. [39] “Saudi-UAE coalition air raid kills civilians in Yemen’s Hodeidah.” Al Jazeera. October 13, 2018. [40] Smith, Bernard. “More Yemeni children die as medicine prices skyrocket.”

Al Jazeera. October 26, 2018. [41] “2018 Yemen High-Level Pledging Event.” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. [42] Murdoch, Catriona and Wayne Jordash. “Will seven million starving Yemenis ever find justice?” Al Jazeera. October 02, 2017. [43] Global Conflict Tracker.

“War in Yemen.” Council on Foreign Relations. Updated November 07, 2018. [44] Miles, Tom. “WHO warns of new Yemen cholera surge, asks for ceasefire to vaccinate.” Reuters. August 03, 2018.

nupoliticalreview.com

Fall 2018

29

Columns

Peremptory Challenges: A Barrier to Justice BEZA ZENEBE / POLITICAL SCIENCE 2022

I

n 1981, James Kirkland Batson, an African-American man from Kentucky, was charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods.[1] During voir dire (jury selection), the prosecution struck down all four potential black jurors using peremptory strikes, which allow lawyers to disqualify potential jurors without providing objection or justification. Though the defense and prosecution both get a limited number of strikes, the prosecution had enough to ensure Batson’s jury would be composed entirely of white jurors.

Batson motioned to dismiss the original jury and form a new one. He argued that the prosecution used peremptory strikes to discriminate against potential black jurors, violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.[2] The trial court denied his motion, and the jury convicted him on both counts.

Batson appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor in a 7-2 decision in 1986.[3] Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.’s majority opinion noted that dismissing African-American jurors due to race implies that they cannot decide a case fairly. The Court established criteria for proving peremptory strike discrimination by prosecutors.

First, the defense must show that the events surrounding the trial suggest discrimination. The prosecution then provides their reasoning for the strike before the judge decides whether the prosecutor intended to discriminate against a juror based on race.[4] Batson v. Kentucky was only one small step in combating discrimination in jury selection.

Prosecutors can still easily hide their efforts to exclude minorities, allowing for rampant discrimination in voir dire. Judges regularly allow prosecutors to strike black jurors for

“

30

Fall 2018

perceived lack of intelligence, education, or employment, as well as having children out of wedlock, relying on government assistance, or living in high-crime areas.[5] Lackluster enforcement enables abuse of peremptory challenges.

To understand why peremptory challenges exist, we must first consider judicial process theory. Prosecutors, representing the state or federal government, are supposed to discover the truth, and thus should look for impartial jurors.[6] Defense lawyers, on the other hand, aim to create a jury that will view their specific client favorably. Peremptory strikes allow defense attorneys to dismiss potential jurors based on implicit biases. This may look as though peremptory challenges bias the jury in favor of the defendant. However, the pros-

Batson v. Kentucky was only one small step in combating discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors can still easily hide their efforts to exclude minorities, allowing for rampant discrimination in voir dire. ecution is supposed to check the defense by using their own strikes to eliminate jurors who may be biased to favor the defendant, yielding a balanced final jury. This theory requires prosecutors to be truth-seekers and defense lawyers to be ethical. Unfortunately, we do not live in this idealistic world.

In Foster v. Chatman (2015), the plaintiff motioned to review the prosecution’s notes, as the prosecution had used peremptory strikes

on all four qualified black juror candidates.

The prosecution’s notes stated that under no circumstances should a black juror be selected. The Supreme Court applied Batson and ruled that there had been purposeful discrimination during voir dire.[8] In City of Seattle v. Erickson (2017), prosecutors used a strike against the only black juror, leading Erickson to object on the grounds that it was racially motivated.[9] The presiding judge saw no indicators of racial discrimination and struck down Erikson’s objection. Erikson then brought the case to the Washington State Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, Justice Susan Owens wrote that the court had repeatedly noted that “Batson protections are not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection."[10] The Washington Supreme Court mandated that trial courts provide explanation from the prosecutor when a sole member of a racial group is struck down from a jury. The strike must then be analyzed to determine if it was racially motivated.

Batson v. Kentucky, Foster v.

Chatman, and City of Seattle v. Erikson are all examples of the prosecution intentionally creating juries that will convict based on racial biases. For defense lawyers, a famous example is the Howard Beach case, wherein a black man was racially targeted and attacked by three white teenagers in Queens, New York.

[11] The defense sought to eliminate potential black jurors, and was accused of discrimination by the prosecution. While the Supreme Court has not ruled on discriminatory peremptory strikes used by defense attorneys, some states have expanded the Batson decision to limit challenges made by the defense.

[7]

” [12]

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

Batson forbids prosecutors from using peremptory challenges on the assumption that black jurors cannot judge a case against another black person impartially. Similar reasoning can be used to hold defense attorneys accountable. Consequently, the trial judge in the Howard Beach case ruled that the defense was using peremptory strikes to discriminate against prospective black jurors, and curbed the defense’s remaining challenges.

It is clear that peremptory strikes act as a barrier to a fair trial. The question then becomes how to reform them. Common suggestions include increasing the time allotted for voir dire, allowing more thought-provoking questions for jurors, and mandating that juries represent the racial demographics within the state.

These solutions are all either ineffective or infeasible. To determine the amount of time necessary for a fairer voir dire, various studies would need to be conducted. But the studies’ applicability would not be ubiquitous. Some cases require more time for voir dire than others. The O.J. Simpson trial, for instance, needed more time than typical homicide cases because of Simpson’s fame.

[13] Prosecutors needed to ensure that jurors would not acquit him simply because of his reputation. Meanwhile, defense lawyers had to consider the crime’s racial element, as the victims were white. Defense lawyers needed to be sure potential jurors would not be

influenced by any adverse feelings about the couple’s biracial relationship.

Some supporters of peremptory challenges believe that abuses are the result of questioning limits. Judges and attorneys ask yes-or-no questions without allowing jurors to elaborate, meaning lawyers have difficulty gauging potential jurors’ biases, and resort to stereotypes to fill any gaps created by their brief answers.[14] This argument postulates that lawyers will not use peremptory strikes inappropriately if they are allowed to ask more substantive questions. It assumes that lawyers discriminate due to lack of information, and that deeper questions can better reveal implicit biases. However, this would require more preparation for both sides, relative to discriminating with peremptory challenges, which takes very little time. For lawyers who do not want to invest a large amount of time on voir dire, discriminatory peremptory challenges would remain a shortcut.

Finally, creating juries that are proportional to state demographics would require mobilizing people of color to participate in jury duty. As explained in my previous installment, jury-related financial hardship disproportionately affects minorities.[15] People of color often seek exemptions or simply do not show up to court. Considering the lackluster compensation for jury duty, and the time that cases may require, it is no wonder these barriers deter people from participating.

[16] Additionally, because these groups see increased residential mobility, it is extremely difficult to mail jury summons due to changing addresses. According to a study conducted by the Detroit U.S. District Court, many summons sent to predominantly minority areas come back to the court as undeliverable or do not come back at all.[17] These factors, among others, prevent courts from creating juries that are representative of their state.

Having attempted to demonstrate that common proposals to reforming peremptory strikes would be ineffective or unfeasible, I conclude that it would be most efficient and fair to eliminate peremptory strikes altogether. As someone interested in law school, I may be going against future self-interest.

But peremptory strikes simply cannot be amended in a sufficient way. They are to the judicial process what gerrymandering is to the political process–abused by each side and harmful to procedural integrity. They might be convenient for those using them, but they allow attorneys to disregard morality and justice to win cases. I do not want to be that kind of lawyer, nor do I believe that lawyers should engage in such unfair practices. They must be tools that ensure justice, and as long as peremptory strikes exist, the meaning of justice remains at stake.

[1] “Batson v. Kentucky 1986.” Encyclopedia.com. Accessed October 23, 2018. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] “Washington Supreme Court Adopts Rule to Curb Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection.” Equal Justice Initiative. July 13, 2017. [5] Starkey, Brando Simeo. “Prosecutors, not just police, can also play a part in the abuse of black lives.” The Undefeated. September 20, 2017. [6] Messina, Toni. “Criminally Yours: Don’t Eliminate Peremptory Challenges.” Above the Law. November 09, 2015. [7] “Foster v. Chatman.” Oyez. Accessed October 23, 2018. [8] Ibid. [9] “City of Seattle v. Erickson (Majority and Concurrence).” Justia US Law. Accessed October 24, 2018. [10] “Washington Supreme Court Adopts Rule to Curb Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection.” Equal Justice Initiative. [11] Beverly A. Chin. “Limiting the Defense's Use of Peremptory Challenges.” Boston College Third World Law Journal. Vol. 8. 1988. [12] Ibid. [13] Callahan, Molly. “How do lawyers handle jury selection with high-profile clients like Shkreli or Cosby?” News @ Northeastern. July 03, 2017. [14] Gabriel, Richard. “Understanding Bias: Preserving Peremptory Challenges, Preventing their Discriminatory Use, and Providing Fairer and More Impartial Juries.” Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law. Accessed October 25, 2018. [15] Zenebe, Beza. “Low Juror Compensation Harms Judicial Process.” Northeastern University Political Review. October 04, 2018. [16] Ibid. [17] “Lack of Jury Diversity: A National Problem with Individual Consequences.” American Bar Association. September 19, 2018.

nupoliticalreview.com

Fall 2018

31

Featured

“

Kim Jones has left the best possible legacy; it's up to us to ensure her legacy is not forgotten, and that the praises sung in her name reverberate throughout this institution for years to come.

Neiha Lasharie ‘18, NUPR Featured Columnist (Spring 2017); President (Fall 2015-Spring 2017); Secretary (Fall 2014-Spring 2015) I have only been back to campus a handful of times as an alumna. For the most part, it's been to meet with professors near and dear to my heart, either to thank them for the various kindnesses they have shown me over the years, or to ask of them the kindness of giving me advice for the next few years. More often than not, for both purposes.

This was one of those occasions. As I sat in one of the waiting areas of the International Affairs and World Cultures Department, I couldn't keep myself from glancing at one particular door. A couple of years ago, during a somewhat uncertain time in the NUPR's history, myself and former Editor-in-Chief Jaclyn Roache found ourselves in this office, metaphorical tails between our corporeal legs, asking the occupant of this office to be the NUPR's faculty advisor. With nary a second thought, she agreed.

This is just one small example of the kind of person Kimberly Jones was.

If you ask a random sampling of students in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities about Kim Jones, their reactions will have a few things in common. They'll immediately light up. They'll have this wistful lilt to their voice. And they will, without fail, comment on two aspects of Kim Jones: that she is the smartest and kindest person they know.

People who have gotten into her International Conflict and Negotiation or Capstone class consider it a genuine honor–and I can say from personal experience, it is difficult to get into her classes even with the best academic standing.

But I still hold Kim in high regard. At a time where I felt that my Capstone experience was in shambles, I emailed her for help on a whim, not expecting any response. Since Kim was busy with her own Capstone students, I assumed she wouldn't respond. She not only

32

Fall 2018

responded, but apologized for the negligible delay in her response to my email. She offered to read my Capstone once it was complete and, again, kept apologizing for not having read it yet. Most recently, we had been in correspondence after I emailed her for advice on applying to PhD programs, following up on an earlier conversation about applying to Master’s programs. Like with everything, she was thoughtful, involved, smart, and endlessly kind.

All this for a student and, later, alumna whom she owed nothing. But that was who she was: she felt like she owed all students everything she could plausibly give them.

The day after I started writing this tribute, I went to talk to Professor Dov Waxman. His office was in different part of the Department from Kim’s. That meant I didn't have to see Kim's office door (I felt almost bad that I left without stopping by her office, as if I had failed the core tenet of a pilgrimage).

Professor Waxman asked me how it felt to be back, and I said it didn't feel right without

Professor Jones. And it didn't. I had almost forgotten about her passing, despite my own devastation at her loss when I first found out, but seeing the post-it notes on her door, a confetti of tributes, drove home the reality of her loss. Adding a post-it of my own felt hollow.

Donations felt hollow.

How could I feel less hollow?

She had left such a mark on all of her students, even those whom she had never taught.

How do you honor that?

"She was never one to toot her own horn," Professor Waxman said of Kim Jones.

He's right–she would never have sung her own praises, or even sat still long enough to bask in the love the Northeastern community felt–continues to feel–for her. No ceremony, no grandiosity, no horns.

She deserves her praises sung. Kim Jones has left the best possible legacy; it's up to us to ensure her legacy is not forgotten, and that the praises sung in her name reverberate throughout this institution for years to come.

nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

A Tribute to Professor Kimberly Jones The passing of Kimberly Jones on October 7th, 2018 continues to be felt by the Northeastern community in Boston and around the world. Kimberly was an Associate Teaching Professor and Associate Director in the International Affairs Program in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities. She began at Northeastern as an Assistant Academic Specialist in International Affairs in 2008 before receiving her Ph.D. in Public and International Affairs from Northeastern in 2011. She also held a JD from the CUNY School of Law. She was a treasured mentor for students and faculty alike, and is profoundly missed every day.

I

first encountered Professor Jones very early on in my time at Northeastern. I was an office assistant in the International Affairs Department during the fall of my freshman year, and, for four hours each week, worked around the corner from her. At the time, I had no idea that she had taken over as the faculty advisor for the Political Review at a time when our future was uncertain. She always gave me a smile before she went into her office hours to meet with the first student in a line of many, to talk about papers and projects on international conflicts that seemed wildly advanced to my younger self.

She was a quiet, strong presence in the office, but removed from me. She taught juniors and seniors, and as a freshman, that seemed eons away.

This semester, two years since I worked in the International Affairs Department (it hasn’t felt like two years, let alone eons), it was my turn to take Conflicts and Negotiations with Professor Jones, and tackle those same papers and projects that once seemed so distant. On the first day of class, Professor Jones only briefly introduced herself before having us pair up and introduce each other to the class.

From the first day, she expressed an immense respect and consideration for each of her students, letting us finish our sometimes

long, excited, half-formed thoughts before responding thoughtfully to each point we brought up. For someone whose resolution is to “be a better listener” every new year, I was thrilled to see that Professor Jones would be teaching me more than just International Affairs.

Professor Jones taught with a level of encouragement, patience, kindness, empathy, and intelligence that the content of the course demanded, but made very difficult.

In almost every class this September, as we began to study genocide, terrorism, and war, she reminded us not to forget our humanity– that “humans are at the center of everything.”

Before she’d say it, she would smile and acknowledge that while it seemed obvious, it was important to remind ourselves this as we learned about seemingly incomprehensible six-digit death tolls. She was, and remains, right.

I still had a great deal to learn from Professor Jones. We all did. Her insights were made even more valuable by her patience and genuine desire to help students. During a lecture on how the international community responded to the Rwandan genocide, Professor Jones began to say “Western influence” but stopped herself and said “external influence” instead. She continued on without

explanation and for the rest of the lecture, I wondered what her reasoning was. After class, I asked her why she had chosen not to use “Western influence.” She explained that, in the context, it was not necessary to use locational words like “Western.” When we do so without thinking, she told me, we center, and by extension prioritize, certain people and places, reinforcing hierarchies in our minds.

She exemplified an idea that she had taught us in a previous lecture: that what we call things is a choice.

Professor Jones emphasized choice in every context. What words we use is a choice.

Conflict is a choice. How we respond to conflict is a choice. Whether we remember the humans at the center of it all is also a choice.

This emphasis instilled accountability and responsibility, as well as hope, in every lesson.

I am very grateful for the short time I was fortunate to call Kimberly Jones my professor, and honored to continue to lead the Political Review with her lessons bearing heavily on my mind. Her lessons, inspirations, and character will continue to endure with all of us who had the privilege to know her and learn from her.

The following tributes from her former students and colleagues are testaments to this.

Warmly and in deepest sympathy, Elena Kuran

Political Science and International Affairs Student Association (PISA) E-Board We were deeply saddened to hear about the passing of Professor Kimberly Jones. For many of PISA's members, and many others in the International Affairs and Political Science programs, Dr. Jones was a beloved professor, trusted advisor, and friend. She was the kind of person who gave everything she had to her students and the causes she believed in.

The defining element of her character was an excess of kindness, which was reflected in her life and work. She believed deeply in the nupoliticalreview.com

ability of people to work beyond what divides them in the pursuit of a shared future, and she passed this belief on to her students. Her passion for human rights, and abiding belief in the dignity of all people touched us, as we are sure it touched many others.

We are lucky to have had the chance to learn from Dr. Jones. we are confident that her legacy will live on in the many students who were taught to broaden their perspectives, challenge their biases, and approach conflicts

with compassion and optimism. The lessons she taught us are not ones we will soon forget.

In her memory, we will strive to put the values she embodied into practice.

Our love goes out to her family, friends, colleagues, and students.

Fall 2018

33

Featured Denis Sullivan, Professor of Political Science & International Affairs

M

y heart remains broken and my attempt

milestones of my undergraduate academic career and

Adulthood has been disappointing to put it lightly,

to write about our beloved Kimberly is a

was ready to walk out the door and take the next step.

ultimately it has been disenchantment. You grow up

struggle, one I wish I did not have to pursue.

Little did I know, Professor Jones would have a huge

thinking adults have all the answers, that they are free

But struggle was something quite natural to Kimberly, so

impact on me as a student, a researcher and now a future

of the small petty things they say youth is marked by;

in her name, in honor of this treasure of a human being,

law school student.

but that’s not true. People are people no matter the age,

Conflict and Negotiation was fascinating from the

and many never grow out of the things they say you will.

start. In the beginning, Professor Jones explained con-

Kimberly Jones restored my faith in people, because she

I'm attaching one of the rare photos I have of

cepts such as genocide, conflict, resolution, perpetrator

proved herself to be the the kind of person I’d begun to

Kimberly (along with my wife Nevenka and me, my

and victim. Throughout the semester, among many

think nonexistent, she proved to be much more than one

sister Eileen [far left], and Carlene Hempel, professor

other things, we discussed the conflict in Northern

could hope a human being could be. She was the best of

of Journalism, with her head on Kimberly's shoulder).

Ireland, the Rwandan Genocide, the relations between

us. She was fair and kind, and did not waste words, steps,

This was taken in January 2009–nearly 10 years ago–in

Israel and Palestine. The first paper that we had to write

or seconds. She was a woman who lived each moment

Luxor, Egypt.

was a manifesto written from the perspective of a media

with such purpose and efficiency that any time she

This is a 'rare' photo because in the 15 years I have

relations officer of the Ukrainian Government, address-

shared with me, in the classroom and out, in turn made

known Kimberly–and having taught, traveled, hiked,

ing Putin and Crimea’s annexation. I didn’t do well on it,

me feel valued.

written, and otherwise worked with her to build IAF and

and Professor Jones emailed me saying that we should

You would think somebody this practical turned

Middle East Studies together–I have very few pictures of

find a time to meet. I went by her office feeling very

others away often, sized you up before she surrendered

her, let alone of us together. I discovered (eventually!)

embarrassed and she told me that I shouldn’t worry;

any of her time, but she never turned anyone away. She

that Kimberly was just camera shy and she was often on

I had all the semester ahead of me to learn. From that

saw everyone’s value, and not hollowly either; she truly

the edge of photos, if we could capture her in the frame at

point onward, I realized what a treasure I had found. The

saw us all with worth. She never interrupted, she did not

all. And here she is - front and center in the frame! Still,

easiest thing to do would be to give me a bad grade.

speak ill of others, she never once made any of us feel

we see her shyness here. Her smile seems to be scream-

Professor Jones is not like that though, she wants all stu-

stupid in order to assert her expertise, never allowed for

ing out to us–"I'd rather not be the center of attention"

dents to reach their full potential and she helps them do

the spaces she occupied to be anything less than safe.

- but thankfully, she is where we all want to keep her: the

so. She told me to focus on the second paper and when I

She was so powerful but was oblivious to it. She

center of our attention and in the center of our hearts.

find time rewrite the first one. Every time that I sent her a

did not understand the awe others had for her, and did

As shy as Kimberly was, all of us who are blessed to

part of my paper I got back a document full of comments,

not show nor harbor an ounce of arrogance. There’s so

know her, to learn from her, to be inspired by her–all of

corrections and suggestions on the right side. She never

much more I could say, like how it would take weeks

us know the power and might of this deeply thoughtful,

gave me feedback only highlighting what I had done

and months for people to notice her small stature, bright

modest, and shy person.

wrong; she talked about my progress and then suggested

red hair, or colorful clothing, because they were too

changes that I should make.

distracted by her soothing energy, by what she had to

this dear friend and colleague, I write to share a memory and my thoughts ...

I encourage all of us to honor Kimberly and to celebrate her life with us so that even now, Kimberly will

Professor Jones has completely changed my aca-

say, by her intelligence and kindness. I would like to tell

remain what she has always been: a mighty champion–a

demic career path. She is one of the professors that I

you of her flaws, to humanize her for you who might not

champion for justice and human rights; a champion

will forever remember after I graduate. She has taught

have known her, but I did not know of any, and it pains

for the truth; a champion for her students, family, and

me how to conduct meticulous, detailed, organized and

me again to think that the world is without her, a person

friends; a champion for animals and the environment.

meaningful research and she has taught me to always

who was unlike anybody I have ever known. I suppose I

think why I am writing something, why it matters

need people to know somebody like her existed at all. I

This is no easy task as we continue to grieve the loss of "our champion", our beloved friend and teacher

Professor Jones has opened many doors for me; she

feel so lucky to have been taught by her, to have worked

and colleague. But let's just ask: WWKD? (what would

motivated me to do the summer dialogue with Professor

with her, to have known her, and I wish that all my loved

Kimberly do?)–grieve, yes. And turn our grief into action

Sullivan in the Balkans because once I found out that she

ones–that everyone really–could have had the joy of

and together build a better world for everyone and every

had written a book with him I knew that the experience

knowing her. I am devastated.

creature on Earth.

would be totally worth it and she has inspired me to con-

“Don’t forget the humans,” she always asked of us.

Kimberly's causes and struggles and passions can be

tinue my studies in law. But most importantly, Professor

As students of a discipline that so often abstracts human

all of ours, and we honor her by continuing to advance

Jones has planted the question “why not” in me.

misery with numbers and theory, that in a way asks us to

these causes and embrace these passions. Bless you, dear

Professor Jones has showed me that if you really want

make careers on the back of human suffering, this was

Kimberly, as you have blessed us.

something and you try very hard for it you will achieve

a simple but necessary reminder. Without doubt, I am a

it. I always wanted to go to law school after graduation

better person for having known her. The world was made

Ileana Cortessi ‘18

but I felt intimidated because I am a girl whose first lan-

better because of her, I am heartbroken to see it without

I had started writing and thinking about this letter before

guage is not English, coming from a small country and

her. Rest in peace, Kimberly Jones.

the heartbreaking news that I received a few weeks ago. I

who has not been greatly exposed to the American legal

don’t want to change the way that I had started writing

system. Professor Jones has inspired me to take the next

this, I don’t want to write in the past tense. I don’t want to

step with caution and at the same time with confidence.

do so because for me Professor Jones is still here, explain-

I wish that more Professors were like her.

ing to us how to conduct organized research, how to properly cite our sources, how to think of conflict and war as highly complicated topics and how to not stop

34

Blair Childs-Biscoe ‘19 Professor Jones is one of the people who taught me most saliently that to be courageous and to be kind is one and

Gillean Baluyut ‘18

the same. She taught through her example, her guidance, her compassion and her presence, and her light will

trying if we don’t get it right the first time. So here it goes:

I don’t really know how to talk about Kimberly Jones

continue to guide us in her physical absence. Professor

“I would like to nominate Professor Kimberly Jones for

now, because I fear that no one will believe me when I

Jones, you are so loved. Thank you for your mentorship,

the Outstanding Teaching Award because that is exactly

explain who she was, now that she is gone. She taught me

friendship, and spirit. In your memory, may we strive to

what she is: outstanding. I met her last fall, during my

so much not only in the classroom and in conversation,

bring out your energy within ourselves and in the lives of

fourth year when I thought that I had experienced all the

but just in being. She is my hero.

others. Rest easy.

Fall 2018

nupoliticalreview.com

conflict?” I felt myself looking around, seeing if this was

with a goodbye email which I’ve found myself revisiting

a trick question, but Professor Jones was not looking for

lately. Just before closing out the email, Kim wrote a

a perfect answer. She was never looking for the perfect

silver-lining, optimistic reminder with which I’d like to

answers; she was looking for us to dig deep. Examine

end, as it evokes the positivity and empathy she brought

our own lenses to the world in the context of conflict,

Carmen Costa ‘19

to this world: “For those of you who have, or who have

something many people never want to think about. Our

developed, an interest in conflict, terrorism, human rights

assumptions, our biases, and our perceptions change

Professor Jones made a large impact on me during my

or peacebuilding, you know that this is not always an easy

how we interact with the world, for good and for bad.

time at Northeastern. Her creative and transformative

thing to study. Although the perusal of the morning head-

In the process of drawing attention to assumptions,

vision of conflict resolution challenged my conceptions

lines is often less than pleasant, and night-time reading is

Kim Jones then asked another question, “What is con-

on the peace building process. She provided me words

not light, keep in mind that there are many, many more

flict?” We briefly debated if conflict was something that

of advice for law careers and shared her own story gra-

acts of humanity unacknowledged every day than the acts

requires a definition, with Kim Jones then stepping in

ciously with me. Her intelligence, charisma, and wit

of violence on which we focus.”

and distilling all the noise into two phrases that have

made any class on any topic enjoyable.

I was in Ireland for the weekend following her

Tessine Murji ‘18

stuck with me well beyond my time with her. The first was, “Two parties with perceptions of incompatible

unexpected passing. During my trip, I reflected on the

I feel like I can only talk about Professor Jones with

goals.” Simple, but getting to the heart of why our per-

significance of the conflict in Northern Ireland and the

people who were lucky enough to have learned from her.

sonal perceptions can be so dangerous if unchecked. She

ways in which Professor Jones’ own Irish heritage and

It feels weird to say she changed my life because it

then went on, “Conflict is choice that occurs in context.

extensive research in this region informed her teaching.

sounds like I’m reducing her intelligence and legacy to a

To change the choices, change the context.” Kim Jones

When I visited the St.Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin on

throwaway phrase people use when they don’t know how

forced us to push back against the myth surrounding

October 12th, I said a prayer and wrote a letter in her

to properly remember someone. But she really did teach

conflict that it was inevitable, the only option, or stem-

name to be pinned up on the “tree of remembrance,”

me how to see the world through a unique framework,

ming from an ancient hatred that will never be quashed.

created for those who have been involved in some form

one that has shaped the way I navigate my personal

of conflict. She touched the lives and minds of so many

relationships.

It was up to us to look beyond that, to work deeper than the surface level issues that come with conflict, but

of her students and colleagues and we have truly suffered

Professor Jones emphasized empathy above any

deep down we’re all human, we all want to feel empathy

a loss as a community. I have attached a picture of the

other means of breaking down the motivations behind

from our fellow humans, and by connecting with our

letter that I pinned to the tree in St. Patrick’s Cathedral

what causes conflict. It seems kind of silly and obvious

humanity first and foremost, it makes us better equipped

for the wonderful Kimberly Jones.

to be reminded to remember human life, feeling, and

to address the tough questions and heal deep wounds.

emotion when discussing monstrosities like genocide

As the United States moves past a midterms marked by

and ethnic cleansing but in a discipline that so often

vitriol, with more aggression coming from both ends

A red-headed, graceful, loving, caring, force to be reck-

quantifies violence into levels of analysis and economic

of the political spectrum, it feels unfair to have lost a

oned with to say the least. For all of the professors I’ve

theory, Jones’ insistence on remembering empathy felt

woman like Kim Jones, one who looks for empathy in the

had the pleasure of meeting, Kim holds a place in my

revolutionary.

face of aggression, in a world seeming like it is about to

Aisling O’Grady ‘19

heart like no other. I waited almost two years to take

Up until I took her class, “rationality” in the political

explode. Instead of being beaten down by what we see in

International Conflict & Negotiation because Kim’s

science sense seemed to trump the importance of frac-

the news, what we think of our political ‘opposition’, or

sections kept filling up and I was determined to be her

tured relationships, generational trauma, and mental

just the loss of a woman who cared for all of her students

student. From the moment I stepped into her classroom I

illness among other forms of civilian suffering resulting

deeply, we need to spend our time remembering what

knew it was worth the wait. “Tomorrow we go to Rwanda,

from war. If one could be rational about conflict, one

Kimberly Jones wanted us to know from the beginning.

next week we’ll be in Northern Ireland”–and that was the

could end conflict. Deaths were “casualties of war” rape

We have to check our assumptions. We need to keep

way Kim made it feel, like we were away on a Dialogue

was “a tactic of war” the colonization of the developing

things in context, while understanding all aspects. Most

without even leaving the Boston classroom in which she

world was “history.” One must remain rational and

importantly, we need to keep finding empathy for those

changed my life twice a week. Kim taught me, among

desensitized in order to properly analyze why things

around us. Losing someone like Kimberly Jones is hard,

many other valuable lessons, that conflict studies was

happen.

moving forward with hope in such a divisive time can be

a viable career path. I’d found trouble studying such a

The way Kim taught conflict was radically effem-

even harder, but she taught us how to confront conflict

daunting subject, but Kim made it healthy and doable by

inate. She posed the perfect counter-narrative to

with grace and empathy above all else. And to use her

never letting us forget the humanity of conflict; it is oth-

masculine “rationality” with radical feminine empathy.

favorite term, we cannot forget the humans.

erwise too easy to get caught up in the numbers, politics,

Paired with soaring intelligence, KJ’s perspective on

and raw facts of it all. It is easy to forget that it boils down

conflict was unlike any other I encountered during my

Caroline Boschetto ‘19

to people, fellow humans, with families and feelings and

undergraduate career. She taught conflict transforma-

Professor Kimberly Jones opened my mind and chal-

rights. Kim loved standing up for human rights, and the

tion instead of conflict resolution. She taught us that

lenged my perspective as a student in International

sanctity of humanity and life.

the words we use to describe the nuances of war matter.

Affairs in a way I had never experienced. I had never

Since meeting Kim I’ve struggled to put into words

She assigned primary sources, and forced us to think

encountered an educator or mentor with so much knowl-

the way in which she impacted me and the connection

about conflict from every participants perspective. She

edge and wisdom but also such gentleness and humility.

I had with her. The simplest way to put it is that I looked

taught us how to humanize and how to connect through

She helped students make sense of what is felt to be the

up to her in every way. I wanted to be just like her when

our exhaustive writing assignments. The way she taught

senseless in today’s world. She built bridges by opening

I grow up. I still do. Visits to Kim’s office are some of the

didn’t reduce conflict to right and wrong; we existed in

eyes. Professor’s Jones’s clear drive for justice, truth, and

times I’ll always hold nearest and dearest to my heart. We

a moral gray zone, forced to grapple with the realities of

compassion struck me as both gentle and fierce. I am

laughed about our nerdy love for organizational tools,

everyone’s suffering.

endlessly grateful for having had the privilege to be her

shared our divergent stories of how our research interests

Kim always referred to her students as political sci-

became identically aligned, and bonded over our fear of

entists. She treated us like equals, and expected the best.

the dentist. I couldn’t believe there was something in this

She let us finish our long-winded thoughts in class, she

Kira Topalian ‘18

world capable of scaring Kimberly Jones. We were doing

gave us thoughtful comments on our papers, and she was

Kimberly Jones was a professor that I was constantly in

research together this semester on Ireland which brought

never condescending. I’m so thankful for knowing her.

awe of and very much wanted to impress, as she was so

us both so much excitement. I was actually, somewhat

student.

intelligent, graceful, and kind. She changed my life and

poetically, in the middle of writing her a related email

Meredith McCleary ‘20

when a friend called with the news. I’ve continued the

‘Why do our assumptions matter?’ That is the very

formation (lead with empathy, don't forget the humans)

research with Kim’s honor as my driving force and I

first question written in my International Conflict and

and her generosity with her students. She went above

couldn’t be prouder to do so with her initial guidance

Negotiation notes, dated September 11, 2017. Professor

and beyond to help me both inside and outside of class,

in my pocket. Word still seem inadequate to describe

Kimberly Jones stood at the front of the class, with her

and even since I’ve been an alumnus. She had a profound

someone like Kim, but she is more than deserving of

signature red hair, and asked us: “Why do our assump-

impact on me and so many others, and I feel incredibly

collection of tributes. When our Conflict class came to

tions matter? What assumptions do you see in studying

lucky to have known her and been taught by her.

nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

an end that Spring semester, she wrapped up the course

inspired me through both her approach to conflict trans-

Fall 2018

35