NUPR Spring 2016

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL

SPOTLIGHT ON THE FAILURE OF OUR STUDENT GOVERNMENT Jaclyn Roache

NEU

DON’T SHOOT NU Chelsea Canedy

IN DEFENSE OF NUPD Prasanna Rajasekaran

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE CHINA’S 4 TRILLION RMB MISTAKE

Alec Cheung

TRUMP, PALIN, AND THE MEMEFICATION OF U.S. POLITICS Aren LeBrun

A REVIEW OF ALLEGED BIAS IN THE ICTY

Evan Bruning, Mara Scallon, Jane Rudy, and Jeremia Whall

1

TRAITOR Neiha Lasharie

PARTIAL IMPARTIALITY Evan Bruning Mara Scallon Jane Rudy Jeremia Whall

5

THE NC 4 TRILLION CHOOSES RMB INTOLERANCE Hannah Lifshutz MISTAKE Alec Cheung 10 8 12

table of

CONTENTS

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 2

THE MEMEFICATION OF DEMOCRACY VS. US POLITICS LAW Aren LeBrun 29 Will Beaman 31

TECH AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Miranda Beggin 34

featured essays

WHAT DID THE DONALD A UMBRELLA TRUMP AND DERELICTION REVOLUTION AMAL 16 OFReillyDUTY McGreen 20 ACHIEVE? CLOONEY Jordan Barrett Choy 14 Kara Morgan TRUMP AND THE LENA PARTY DUNHAM’S ESTABLISHGIRLS Lauren Corvese 18 MENT Roshan Pai 22 2

featured columns

nu spotlight

IN DEFENSE OF NUPD Prasanna Rajasekaran

DON’T SHOOT NU Chelsea Canedy 24

THE FAILURE OF OUR STUDENT GOVERNMENT Jaclyn Roache 26 25

IMAGES: via Flickr, WikiCommons

3

meet the

TEAM

EXECUTIVE board

Neiha Lasharie President Jaclyn Roache Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Heintz VP of PR/Secretary Megan Walsh Design and Layout Editor Evan Bruning Treasurer Mike Wagenheim and Jennifer Heintz Web Designer

EDITORIAL board

Prasanna Rajasekaran Managing Editor Emilio Cariati Magazine Editor Wendy Chu Magazine Editor Rachel Dec Magazine Editor Kaitlin Beegle Magazine Editor Brittany McWilliams Blog Editor Hannah Lifshutz Column Editor Lindsey Bressler Column Editor

MISSION statement

The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a nonpartisan 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.

for more

INFORMATION

Check out our webiste: www.nupoliticalreview.com for more articles and the Be Heard blog.

Want to be heard? Reach out to NUPR for more information at: nupoliticalreview@gmail.com

4

featured essays

FROM THE

EDITOR AND

PRESIDENT Dear Reader,

A great deal has already happened within the first few months of 2016: globally, the sudden and disruptive impact of the Panama Papers and the slew of terrorist attacks around the world; nationally, the escalation of the cutthroat presidential race; and locally, student activism on Northeastern’s campus and calls for reform in our Student Government.

It has been hard to keep up with everything. Despite the chaos, there has been one common thread: the world is more interconnected than ever. No matter how remote the corner of the world in question is, the impact of events therein will necessarily resonate across the globe.

As we explore the ripple effect that these events have, we are proud to serve as a platform in which students can engage in discussions that attempt to contextualize their role as Northeastern students, residents of the United States, and global citizens. The NU Political Review finds itself globalized along with the students that contribute to it, and we see with each passing semester a wider breadth of regions and issues covered.

This semester’s writers have explored this complex interdependence through myriad topics. Local issues, from the Northeastern Police Department’s campus policies and their impact on the national gun control movement, to the potential global consequences of a Trump presidency, were discussed in depth. More globally, our writers examined multi-faceted issues, including the technological developments that have revolutionized social entrepreneurship in the Middle East, and the continuing worldwide aftershock of the 2008 financial crisis. No matter how niche or microcosmic the issue, we are all impacted by current affairs — this publication is a testament to that fact.

We hope you enjoy reading this edition as much as we loved curating it.

We’re excited to see how our publication evolves and, as ever, welcome your engagement in the future!

All the best,

Neiha Lasharie, President

Jaclyn Roache, Editor-in-Chief

PARTIAL IMPARTIALITY A REVIEW OF ALLEGED BIAS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

Jeremia Whall, International Affairs and Political Science 2016 Evan Bruning, International Affairs and Economics 2017 Mara Scallon, Environmental Science 2016 Jane Rudy, International Affairs 2016

T

he International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was created by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in response to the horrific violence of the Balkan Wars in the early 1990s.[1] In 1993, as the conflict was still in its relatively early stages, the Tribunal was established in The Hague, a small Dutch city emerging as a center of international cooperation and justice. Since the ICTY began trying alleged war criminals, the majority of those convicted have been of Serbian descent, leading to claims that the ICTY is inherently biased against Serbs. These accusations, made by officials from both the Russian Federation and Serbia itself, have been aimed at discrediting what has been hailed by many as a groundbreaking institution in the realm of international law.[2] The claims target both the individual judges and the institution as a whole, but have been dismissed by those who argue that the discrepancy in the ethnic balance of convictions is merely indicative of the fact that Serbs committed most of the war crimes.[3] These dismissals have bred resentment and are demonstrative of the global community’s failure to view the Balkan conflict, and conflict overall, in a nuanced manner. This undermines the development of international criminal justice,

as well as reconciliation efforts in the region, making it necessary to explore any perceived unfairness.

Through close examination of and research into the Balkan conflict and the ICTY, we have come to the conclusion that an anti-Serb bias is not inherent in the Tribunal. However, institutional weaknesses and a lack of accountability within and outside the Tribunal have allowed the biases of individual actors to influence the outcome of proceedings. Thus, by neglecting to address the need for impartiality and accountability within each step of the legal process, the architects of the ICTY and the international community alike failed to produce a universally impartial institution. The structural and procedural weaknesses of the Tribunal exacerbate issues inherent in international justice, challenge reconciliation efforts in the Western Balkans, and allow the predominant narrative of the Bosnian war to creep into court proceedings. Another major problem is that these structural/impartiality issues are not taken seriously, weakening what should be a strong foundation for international criminal justice.

From its creation, the ICTY as an institution was foundationally flawed. Basic requirements

for an effective and impartial legal institution, such as training for legal staff, were ignored or incorporated long after the ICTY’s formation.

[4] A key component of any fair tribunal, a defense counsel, was also formed rather late.

The Association for the Defense Counsel (ADC) was not established until well into the ICTY’s mandate, leaving the strength and relevance of the ADC in doubt from the beginning. The ADC was chronically underfunded, under-resourced, and understaffed, according to Dr. Michael Karnavas, a President Emeritus of the ADC.[5] This was especially true when dealing with the Office for Legal Aid and Defense (OLAD), which performed poorly in its duty to provide logistical support to the ADC, including everything from interns to printers. Additionally, many judges were ill-prepared and had little experience in courtroom trials. This resulted in variations in courtroom procedure and an inconsistent appeals process.[6] Adding to the inconsistency were the differing legal backgrounds of the judges. The Tribunal’s bench holds judges from both common law and civil law backgrounds.

Civil law judges often act as “investigators,” bringing charges and establishing facts through witness examination, whereas common law judges act as referees, with lawyers handling

5

featured essays

the bulk of proceedings.[7] These structural and procedural flaws made the ICTY as an institution susceptible to the creeping bias existing in the international community.

As evidence of this creeping bias, critics point to the disproportionality in convictions according to ethnic group. This is where the potential for an anti-Serb bias becomes evident, as the proportion of Serbs convicted is much higher than that of Croats or Bosnians.

Serbia’s President, Tomislav Nikolic, claimed that Serbs were sentenced to 1,150 years collectively, while those who committed crimes against Serbs received only 55.[8] This number is disputed, but it does demonstrate the sense of victimization felt by the Serbian people, which can pose challenges to the Tribunal’s goal of reconciliation. Of all the Serbs indicted, 57% were sentenced, compared to just 32% of Croats.[9] This trend can also be seen in the disproportionate ethnic distribution of indictments. Of the total indictments issued by the Prosecutor, 64% were against Serbs.[10] In addition to this disproportionality, many also see a stark lack of indictments for Croatian and Bosniak military and political leaders who were seen to have played a significant role in the violence, such as Croatian president Franjo Tuđman and Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegovic.

According to the ICTY itself in the Prosecutor v.

Gotovina et al. case, Tuđman played an active role in a Croat Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), the body that oversaw much of the war effort and, arguably, many decisions that led to war crimes.[11] In another case, Ante Gotovina, a Croatian general who oversaw Operation Storm, a campaign seen by some Serbs as genocidal, was initially found guilty after years of trial.

But the ICTY appeals court later found him innocent, rebuking many of the conclusions made in his previous trial.[12] Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic later said, “It is now quite clear the Tribunal has made a political decision and not a legal ruling.”[13] Additionally, sentencing was also carried out inconsistently across

6

ethnicities: Serbian convictions came with longer sentences on average than did those of Croatians or Bosnians.[14] The ICTY has also shown a tendency to be overly zealous in pursuing the convictions of Serbs. Frederik Harhoff, a Danish judge, was expelled from trial after the disclosure of a private email he had sent where he complained about the recent acquittals of top accused Croatian and Serbian leaders. Vojislav Šešelj, a politically powerful Serb accused of war

The structural and procedural weaknesses of the Tribunal exacerbate issues inherent in international justice, challenge reconciliation efforts in the Western Balkans, and allow the predominant narrative of the Bosnian war to creep into court proceedings. crimes, had filed a motion seeking the removal of Harhoff following the release of this email, arguing that Harhoff’s apparent pro-conviction bias threatened the impartiality of Šešelj’s trial.

The Tribunal’s investigation concluded that the

emails revealed a bias in favor of convictions and Harhoff was removed from the case.

[15]

Some of the Tribunal’s structural and procedural practices were blamed for this apparent bias, as well as some cases of individual prejudice. Carla del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor from 1999 to 2007 in the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) was vilified by many opponents of the Tribunal. While it can be argued that the sealed indictments were necessary in many cases when there was an elevated risk of suspect flight, many saw the use of these sealed indictments as a method to cover up the targeting of specific individuals or ethnic groups. Margriet Prins, an official at the OTP itself, questioned the use of sealed indictments and professed that not many of the Bosnians indicted were convicted.[16] During del Ponte’s tenure, the Tribunal failed to indict Franjo Tuđman, the Croatian president during the conflict. This is repeatedly cited as one of the Tribunal’s biggest failings, and supports the sentiment that Croatia’s position as a convenient ally to the United States-led NATO coalition against Serbia warrants partial forgiveness for its crimes. Croatia’s Operation Storm was part of a final push to end the war indirectly aided by NATO’s airstrikes in Bosnia, and the heavily Western-influenced Tribunal does not wish to tarnish the alliance’s image.[17] There was also little guidance from the international community on how to run an international tribunal, and the Tribunal lacked accountability due to this international disengagement. The United States and other Security Council members disregarded their responsibility to guide the Tribunal through its early years, abetting its irrelevance while the conflict was still raging.

Even worse, the United States has used its outsized influence on the Tribunal to play a hypocritical, and at times counterproductive, role. The United States escapes responsibility on its part, while sustaining a narrative that legitimizes the actions of America and NATO

during the conflict. Harhoff, before being kicked off Šešelj’s case, complained that the Tribunal president, American judge Theodor Meron, helped establish a precedent within the Tribunal for protecting the interests of military leaders involved in international conflicts.[18] One such case where this was apparent was the overturning of convictions for two top Croatian generals, General Gotovina and General Markac.

[19] Critics of the decision blamed Meron for being too lenient on military commanders that do not specifically give orders to commit war crimes.[20] Some argue that America’s defense of the Tribunal is due to the United States’ vested interest in maintaining the dominant narrative of the war in international, especially Western, circles. The Tribunal upheld the idea that Bosnians were the victims and Serbs were the criminals, while Croats were convenient allies in the war. To be clear, there were victims and criminals on all sides, and to many, the narrative that the ICTY seems to embody is not indicative of that fact.[21] To many in the international community, disagreeing with the American perspective of the war is too much of a political liability to be worth the trouble. Demonstrating this, the representative we spoke to at the Slovenian Embassy in the Hague answered our questions by saying that they had to believe the Tribunal was doing its job impartially, brushing aside any of the criticisms we brought up.[22] As a part of the Western Bloc, Slovenia would most likely feel significant pressure from the United States and the European Union if it gave a critical review of the Tribunal. The European Union made cooperation with the Tribunal a critical part of

ascension talks with Croatia, demonstrating both a willingness to put political muscle behind the institution and a tendency to defend its actions.

The ICTY has furthered the development of an international criminal justice regime that was born in the aftermath of World War II. However, the structural and procedural issues of the Tribunal weaken and discredit these advancements and do not make it clear

The ICTY’s flaws only give further credence to those political voices that are detrimental to Serbia and the healing of the Western Balkans. whether future conflicts should be handled by ad hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Court (ICC), or a combination thereof. These are questions the international community must explore. Is universal criminal justice realistic?

Many would argue it is not, at least until major nations such as the United States, Russia, and China submit to the authority of war crimes institutions such as the ICC. But what does this mean for ad hoc justice as it has existed and may continue to exist?

Ad hoc tribunals, or those set up after a specific conflict, may be the best way to properly resolve conflicts, since the courts can focus on one particular region instead of the international community. Universal criminal justice will not become a reality until countries with oversized influence, such as the U.S., China, and Russia, buy into an impartial process of investigation, prosecution, and sentencing. Until such events happen, the ad hoc model is critical for establishing the legal precedent that will further develop international criminal justice as a truly global phenomenon.

The structure of the Tribunal contains many significant legal and procedural flaws that inhibit it from being an effective and just administrator of restorative justice. While this was not a clear case of victors’ justice, it certainly shares some undertones with the postWorld War II tribunals. These flaws weaken the ICTY institutionally, and set the stage for greater disenchantment with the idea of international justice. In a more localized sense, they also make reconciliation in the troubled Western Balkans more challenging. A tribunal that is partial is seen as another part of the West’s war on Serbia. NATO involvement in Bosnia and the Kosovar independence movement have already strained relationships between Serbia and the West and given rise to nationalist politicians.

The ICTY’s flaws only give further credence to those political voices that are detrimental to Serbia and the healing of the Western Balkans.

The claims of widespread institutional bias are incorrect, but the fact that these questions were brushed aside so easily illustrates the need for a more easily challenged narrative, in Bosnia and the world.

SOURCES: [1] United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, “History,” [2] Vreme, “O Hago na Ist Riveru,” Vreme [3] Oksana Boyko, “Case of accused Serbian war criminal puts Hague on trial,” [4] Dr. Michael Karnavas (Association of Defense Counsel), in discussion with the authors. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Vreme, “O Hago na Ist Riveru,” [9] Agence France-Press, “Statistics on the ICTY: 126 cases closed, 14 to go,” [10] Ibid. [11] PROSECUTOR V. ANTE GOTOVINA MLADEN MARKA,. IT-06-90. [12] Ibid. [13] Bruno Waterfield, “Croatian hero Ante Gotovina acquitted of war crimes” [14] Hola, B., Bijleveld, C., & Smeulers, A, “Consistency of international sentencing: ICTY and ICTR case study.” [15] Marlise Simons, “International Judge is Removed From Case Over Apparent Bias.” [16] Margriet Prins, (Office of the Prosecutor. Personal Interview), in discussion with the authors. [17] Ivo H. Daalder, “Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended.” [18] Marlise Simons, “International Judge is Removed From Case Over Apparent Bias.” [19] Marlise Simons, “Hague Court Overturns Convictions of Two Croatian Generals Over a 1995 Offensive.” [20] David Rohde, “Gutting International Justice.” [21] Zohar, B, “Misrepresentation of the Bosnian War by Western media.”

[22] Devcic, D, (Slovenian Embassy, the Hague), in discussion with the authors. IMAGES: Via Wikicommon and ICTY Photos.

7

featured essays Rights Commission of Pakistan describes it, “the element of honor or supposed honor that is felt by the male members of the family of a woman. In honor crimes, there will always be a woman in the equation.”[5] It is with this background in mind that Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s film deserved its Oscar win. Bringing such an important issue to the international frontier forces action; certainly, the Prime Minister of Pakistan announced in February that he would take serious measures to counter the prevalence of honor killings in Pakistan.[6] Whether or not these measures come into fruition remains to be seen, but there is definitely going to be backlash as can already be witnessed in response to the Senate of the province of Punjab unanimously passing the Punjab Protection of Women Against Violence Bill 2015.[7]

TRAITOR

We must face our faults, as myriad and winding as they are, with bravery and honesty if we are to reach the potential only a country with our resilience has.

A STUDY IN PAKISTAN’S COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Neiha Lasharie, Political Science and International Affairs 2018

R

enowned filmmaker Sharmeen ObaidChinoy added another Oscar to her CV on February 28th for her documentary A Girl in the River, which highlights the issue of rampant honor killings in Pakistan.[1] Many Pakistanis, including myself, see this as an important step toward breaking down the taboos surrounding violence against women.

According to multiple sources, including Pakistan’s Aurat Foundation, one thousand women are murdered annually by way of honor killings in Pakistan; this number is not inclusive of men who are killed (often in tandem with whatever dishonor is incurred by the woman or girl) or killings that go unreported, as the Pakistani government does not compile national statistics.[2]

8

Honor killings are often wrongly conflated with Islamic practices, along with many other practices in Pakistan, including isolated instances of female genital mutilation and child marriages. It is because of this perception that honor killings occur not just in rural areas, but also in large cities like Lahore, where a woman was murdered in front of the high court after being attacked with bricks by her male relatives.

[3]

The dishonor in question is often a matter of marriage and autonomy. While much of Pakistan has progressed beyond traditional notions of marriage (arranged marriages are still part of the norm, albeit with the consent of all parties — an interesting topic of discussion for a different time), there is still a large swath

of the population that believes a woman does not have a choice in her marriage. As such, most honor killings take place when a woman is perceived as making her own decisions regarding marriage or is perceived as having had an extramarital relationship. In many cases, these accusations are based on suspicion and hearsay — but that hearsay is enough on its own to constitute dishonor upon a family.[4] Honor killings are a necessarily gendered problem; they subsist on the idea that women are subject to the whims of their male relatives and the deep-seated belief that a family’s honor begins and ends with women — particularly the daughter. The distinction between domestic violence or intimate partner homicide and honor killings is, as Rafia Asim of the Human

Cultural mindsets, however, need to change in more regards than one. In comments made online regarding honor killings and the Oscars, there exists a lot of sentiment against ObaidChinoy reminiscent of the backlash received by international sweetheart Malala Yousafzai when she — as a matter of choice or not — took her activism abroad.

There seems to be a common belief that Pakistan’s dirty laundry cannot be aired outside our borders for fear that it will further mar the country’s image around the world.

Many comments on articles posted on Dawn’s Facebook page (Dawn being the most widely circulated English-language newspaper in Pakistan) urge Pakistan to “disown” Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, claiming she tarnishes the image of Pakistan and that the Academy’s jury is biased against Muslim countries, wishing

to portray them as singular practitioners of barbarism.

While that last claim certainly has merit in an Academy that has historically glorified Orientalist, racist, war-mongering, scapegoating flicks and performances, it is unfair to lay blame on a woman who wants to sow positive change in Pakistan — Obaid-Chinoy’s two Oscars should not be the realm for the very warranted skirmish over Orientalism. That Obaid-Chinoy’s activism has transcended borders is a necessary consequence of her medium; a medium that is as legitimate as any when it comes to inspiring social change.

Never has Obaid-Chinoy eschewed her Pakistaniat. She graced the red carpet in Pakistani garb from head-to-toe. Her speech spoke of the resilience of Pakistan and Pakistani women. She even praised the Prime Minister of Pakistan while millions of viewers were watching — and yet it is her Oscar that is the scandal?

Malala Yousefzai continues to suffer the same treatment Obaid-Chinoy is suffering now.

[8] While much of the country holds her in high esteem and adoration, many individuals see Malala as a Western agent strategically elevated to make Pakistan look bad. She’s considered a traitor for having had the audacity to move abroad — despite a literal bullet to the head, continued death threats from the Taliban, and possible trauma. Even our sole Nobel Laureate was stricken from the figurative family tree because he wasn’t the right kind of Pakistan to represent us abroad. How could Pakistan possibly claim a Nobel Laureate if he a) isn’t Sunni and b) is, of all things, of the Ahmadiyya community (a marginalized community I have previously written about).[9] How is it that we, as a country, wish to project a positive image of ourselves internationally when we work hard to alienate and “disown” those of us that aim to do just that? The aforementioned Nobel Laureate Dr. Abdus Salam was alienated so cruelly that he eventually left Pakistan and died in the United Kingdom.[10] He predicted the God Particle. A few years ago, the God Particle was discovered.

Dr. Abdus Salam suffered the wrath of a country so wrapped up in its own inferiority complex that it practically deastroyed the memory of a great man. We cannot let this inferiority complex infect our relationships with our great people again. This heart-breaking piece in Dawn imagines what correspondence from Dr. Salam to Malala would look like: “You are the new ‘traitor.’

You are presented with the dire challenge of bringing peace and pride to a country, that doesn’t want your gift.

Like a mother of a particularly rebellious child, you must find a way to love them nonetheless. Eventually, I pray, they will understand.”[11] Obaid-Chinoy cannot, must not be turned into a traitor; her story cannot end like Dr. Salam’s did.

We must face our faults, as myriad and winding as they are, with bravery and honesty if we are to reach the potential only a country with our resilience has.

Obaid-Chinoy said it best herself in an interview with Christiane Amanpour: “I think it’s very important to have these difficult conversations. We aren’t going to make the country a better place if we keep glorifying the

There seems to be a common belief that Pakistan’s dirty laundry cannot be aired outside our borders for fear that it will further mar the country’s image around the world. good things about it. We must talk about issues that confront Pakistan and there are many issues that confront the country.”[12] As a country, Pakistan has many things to be proud of, and we have much to be hopeful about. But our hope must leave room for the dirty secrets, the skeletons in the closet and the taboos that need to be outed, thrown into harsh relief, and loudly deconstructed if we are to progress as a society. People like ObaidChinoy and Malala Yousefzai are gems in a climate of foggy morality because they have the courage, the resilience, and the much-needed stubbornness to inspire top-down policy and influence grassroots social change.

SOURCES: [1] “Sharmeen Obaid wins second Oscar award, makes Pakistan proud” [2] Terrence McCoy, “In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in ‘honor killings’ annually. Why is this happening?”

[3] Mubasher Bukhari, “Pakistan woman stoned to death by family for marrying man she loved” [4] Beenish Ahmed, “Telling the Stories of the Victims of ‘Honor Killings’” [5] Ibid. [6] Jon Boone, “Pakistani PM promises tougher stance on ‘honour’ killings” [7] “Women protection bill will cause divisions within families and increase divorce rate: JUI-F chief” [8] Raheel Raza, “Malala and the Conspiracy Theorists” [9] Neiha Lasharie, “Discrimination Against Minorities in Pakistan: a Look at the UDHR” [10] Nayyar Afaq, “We are sorry, Dr Abdus Sala” [11] Faraz Talat, “A letter from Dr Abdus Salam to Malala” [12] Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, interview by Christiane Amanpour. IMAGES: Courtesy of World Economic Forum.

9

featured essays

THE

4 TRILLION RMB MISTAKE

Alec Cheung, Political Science and Journalism 2017

A

t the dusk of the 2008 U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, a total of $10.2 trillion disappeared seemingly overnight. $3.3 trillion was cumulatively lost by U.S. homeowners, and $6.9 trillion in stocks and investments was wiped out.[1] The consequences of the greed and shortsightedness of this nation’s wealthy elites manifested themselves as harrowing, real-life costs. In the United States alone, 1.2 million homes were lost as a direct result of what we now call “The Great Recession.”[2] The recession is still being felt globally. The Greek economy is free falling so rapidly that people are selling their bodies on the street for the price of a sandwich.

[3] Countries like Iceland, Italy, Spain, and Portugal are still desperately trying to claw themselves out of their financial gutters, while Germany stretches to miraculously balance the gigantic burden on its shoulders.[4] The effects of the recession do not just stop at the West; Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong — three of the four Asian Tigers — all saw their GDPs shrink in 2008’s second quarter as a result of the Great Recession.[5] In the midst of 2008’s chaos and pandemonium, somehow, China trudged along.

Seemingly unaffected by the financial meltdown, China’s GDP in 2008 and 2009 sustained a consistent growth of 9.6% and 9.2% respectively.[6] Chinese tourists were still traveling around the world, making monthly headlines with their unsophisticated behavior and driving up the prices of local goods and property with their incessant spending.[7][8][9] To the outside world, it looked as if the Chinese were living in their own bubble, completely unaffected by the 2008 financial crash.

Fast forward to 2016. The Shanghai Stock Market took a dive just last year.[10] The Communist State’s economic growth is at its lowest in 25 years, with a mere 6.8% increase in GDP in 2015.[11] Foreign investors are leaving, while the media reports on the final chapter of the “Chinese Miracle.”[12] China’s cheap labor-driven economy is finally coming to an end; the exodus of Chinese workers from urban to rural areas has been dubbed “the largest migration of any known mammal.”[13] Are the Chinese finally feeling the shockwave of the Great Recession?

That’s one way to look at it. Another way is to understand that China has been digging its own grave since 2008. Now is finally the time to decide whether to jump in or keep digging.

10

The 4 Trillion RMB Nightmare China was originally supposed to suffer greatly from the 2008 financial meltdown. The Great Recession was expected to take an enormous toll on China’s economy; exports, imports, and exchange rates dipped significantly in the immediate wake of the financial crash.[14] In an attempt to combat impending doom, Chinese leaders simply tried to push the problem into the future; by introducing a 4 trillion RMB ($570 billion) stimulus package that invested in local infrastructure, healthcare, and industries that urgently need government aid in order to maintain their level of growth.[15] The scale of China’s current housing and credit bubbles and its failing

China has been digging its own grave since 2008. Now is finally the time to decide whether to jump in or keep digging. raw materials and manufacturing industries were blown to their current proportions due to this gargantuan stimulus package.

In order to further understand China’s current financial turmoils, the 2008 stimulus package itself must be closely examined. The 4 trillion RMB stimulus accounted for 12.5% of China’s GDP in 2008, and was allocated roughly into six different sectors: transport and power infrastructure, rural village infrastructure, environmental investment, affordable housing, technology innovation and structural adjustment, and, lastly, health and education. Along with that, the central government issued instructions to loosen up monetary policy and to provide bank credit to large lenders (usually backed by government approval).[16] This stimulus package was just fancy duct tape — it temporarily plugged the holes in the ship but did not keep it from sinking in the long run.

Infrastructural developments from the stimulus package actually contributed to the emergence of more ghost towns throughout the country. Wuhan, a city that currently owes China’s central bank

upwards of 122 billion RMB as a result of poor development plans, serves as a perfect example of this phenomenon.[17] Massive developments in the city were made possible by China’s Central Bank’s all-out-landing strategies, but the non-existence demand for property means that the city cannot pay back its loans. The real estate market was tremendously overvalued, backed by the false pretense that China’s enormous population would cause demand to rise as soon as there was supply for it. The truly horrifying reality is that Wuhan is just one of the Chinese cities that found itself in a hundred-billion RMB debt; cities like Chongqing, Chengdu, and Ordos are suffering nearly identical ordeals.[18][19] Poor development efforts in these less well-off cities actually incentivized more ill-conceived development projects. In order to provide an illusion of GDP growth, development, and employment, local officials retreated to the option of building just for the sake of building. For example, shopping malls and new streets spurred out of nowhere in the proposed economic center of Zhengzhou, with no one to occupy them. They have, however, already served their purpose by generating a temporary economic growth.[20] In cities like Chengdu and Chongqing, perfectly good roads have been dug up and rebuilt to provide a facade of employment to their communist leaders.

[21]

Sunset industries such as steel, iron ore, and rubber are also on the receiving end of this stimulus package. These were industries that had been on the decline in China’s modernizing economy, and were hit especially hard as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. Chinese leaders were subsequently forced to pump money into these dying industries for the sole purpose of keeping them afloat.[22] In truth, the IT and tech industries that were listed as beneficiaries of the stimulus package received close to nothing; most of the funds were funneled into dying manufacturing and raw materials industries instead.[23] The sudden boost of economic stimulant caused extreme overproduction in these manufacturing and raw material industries. After reaching their peak at over 5,500 RMB per metric ton, steel prices in 2016 sank below 2,000 RMB at the same volume. Similar drops in value due to overproduction can be seen in similar industries, like the iron ore and rubber sectors. The former lost almost four-fifths of its value since 2009, while the latter has shrunken by approximately 60% since 2011. Similar trends in manufacturing and raw material industries can be observed across

the board in China. For a state with 42.7% of its economy dependent on such industries, this is extremely bad news.[24] Why Is This Continuing to Happen?

The complicated nature of China’s political system has eluded Western observers ever since it opened up in the early 1980s. While economic growth is important in other states, it takes up a special significance under the Chinese Communist Party as a deciding factor of societal stability. As a result, poor economic decisions, ones that do not deliver true growth and only maintain a facade of it, are made in an attempt to keep order and maintain China’s image as the economic miracle of the 20th century.

The 4 trillion RMB problem and its seemingly blaring mistakes are just a mere symptom of China’s unique power structure. The country stood to lose too much in 2008 had its sustained economic growth halted. The temptation to fund its dying industries in order to maintain the facade of growth is understandable.

This is exactly where the problem lies. What the Chinese government did on the eve of the 2008 crash stabilized the country’s economy for the next couple of years, but the problems did not go away completely. In fact, it enlarged the root causes and

created an even larger mess than existed eight years ago.

The downfall of the Chinese economy does not only spell doom for China, but for the entire world. China accounted for 21% of total U.S. imports ($481 billion) in 2015 alone.[25][26] In

The downfall of the Chinese economy does not only spell doom for China, but for the entire world. lesser developed parts of the world, China’s slowing economy has already had a deadly impact.

Today, China consumes 50% of the world’s nickel supply, 53% of thermal coal, and 60% of iron ore.

[27] A drastic drop in China’s ability to purchase these goods will be disastrous for countries with economies dependent on their raw materials industries.

Though the situation is dire, it isn’t time to

run for the hills just yet. Even though the last large stimulus package was fueled by China’s own shortsightedness, the mere fact that China managed to maintain its economy for eight years after the most serious financial meltdown in recent history — albeit its short sightedness — is a strong indication that the country has its sleeves loaded with tricks. In order to combat recent financial slowdowns, the country laid off close to two million of its workers for the purpose of retraining.[28] The true extent of China’s ability to manipulate its economy remains a mystery. Still, scholars and speculators who are accustomed to studying free market economies need to exercise extreme caution while judging the unaccounted future of China’s state capitalist economy.

The conclusion to all of this is an unsatisfying one. There is no substantiated proof as to whether or not China can weather the upcoming financial storm. If it chooses to push its problems further into the future again, a more dismal situation — packed with even larger bubbles and more financial woes — waits at China’s doorstep in the next decade. If it chooses to cut its losses and brace for the storm, it must prepare for serious political and social turmoil in the face of a slowing economy.

Either way, China is in for one hell of a rough landing.

SOURCES: [1] John Carney, “America Lost $10.2 Trillion in 2008” [2] John W. Schoen, “Study: 1.2 Million Households Lost to Recession” [3] Tom Wyke, “Teenage Prostitutes Selling Sex for the Price of a Sandwich as Greece’s Crippling Recession Pushes Prices to an All-Time Low” [4] “The Reluctant Hegemon”, The Economist [5] Thayer Watkins, “The Global Impact of the 2008-2009 Recession” [6] “2016, GDP Growth (annual %),” [7] Denis D. Gray, “Bad Chinese Tourists are Earning the Reputation as The New ‘Ugly American’” [8] “Chinese Buying up $30 Billion in US Homes as China’s Economy Sputters” [9] Diane Francis, “The Chinese are Coming, and They’d Like to Buy Your House” [10] D.D., “Was the Crash that Big?” [11] Mark Magnier, “China’s Economic Growth in 2015 is Slowest in 25 Years” [12] Enda Curran and Jonathan Browning, “Foreign Investments Into China Falls as Weaker Yuan Dents Inflow” [13] “The End of the Chinese Miracle” [14] “The $34 Trillion Experiment: China’s Banking System and the World’s Largest Macro Imbalance” [15] Barry Naughton, “Understanding the Chinese Stimulus Package” [16] Ibid. [17] Ling Wei and Bob Davis, “Debt That Once Boosted Its Cities Now Burdens China” [18] Tom Orlik, “Behind a Chinese City’s Growth, Heavy Debt” [19] Christina Larson, “As the West Faltered, China’s Growth is Fueled by Debt” [20] SBS Dateline, “China’s Ghost Cities,” [21] Tyler Durden, “Guest Post: Chongqing, The Largest Construction Site In The World” [22] See 15. [23] Ibid. [24] See 14. [25] “Trade in Goods With China”, 2015: U.S. Census Bureau [26] “Total Value of U.S. Trade in Goods (export and import) Worldwide From 2004 to 2015 (in billion U.S. dollars)” [27] “The End of the Chinese Miracle”, Financial Times [28] Kevin Yao and Meng Meng, “China Expects to Layoff 1.8 Million Workers in Coal, Steel Sectors” IMAGES: Courtesy of MAD Research.

11

featured essays identity is vital as we progress into the age of gender neutrality. In order to lawfully determine the “biological sex” of an individual, what measures higher on the scale of psychological burden: undergoing a pelvic exam every time you’re questioning which bathroom to use or sharing a mirror and a hand dryer with someone who is transgender?

Like many states in the Deep South, North Carolina’s demographic is sharply divided between progressive city folk and their rural conservative counterparts. For this reason, the citizenry in areas like Charlotte and Raleigh have attempted to ignite change through their local governments, which isn’t something that the Republican-controlled General Assembly has taken a liking to. David Graham from the The Atlantic notes, “In September, just as the legislative calendar was ending, lawmakers heard a bill that would prevent cities from passing higher minimumwage laws, establishing affordable-housing

IN THE AGE OF ACCEPTANCE, NORTH CAROLINA CHOOSES

INTOLERANCE

Hannah Lifshutz, International Affairs and Political Science 2017

L

GBT rights have expanded exponentially in the past year. The Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage across all 50 states, briefly putting an end to state-imposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[1] The majority of political backlash following the Obergefell decision, primarily from conservative states and politicians, consisted mostly of homophobic banter and religiously motivated Kim Davis-style reactions. However, North Carolina demonstrated a new level of bigotry on March 23rd when Governor Pat McCrory signed into law House Bill 2, or the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act.” The bill disallows transgender individuals from using

12

public bathrooms and locker rooms that do not coincide with their “biological sex.”[2] The Bathroom Bill came to the floor of the North Carolina state legislature after lawmakers convened to overturn an anti-discrimination law passed by Charlotte’s city council.[3] By targeting his Republican constituents, Governor Pat McCrory, who spearheaded the bill, likely hopes that this prototypical conservative stance will aid him as he gears up for reelection.[4] Aside from lacking any decency, constitutionality, or evidence that its institution is necessary, HB2 is only going to assure that the individuals within the state who have fought tirelessly for equality are further alienated — all for bigoted political campaigning.

The Obergefell Supreme Court case was a landmark decision that afforded marriage rights to same-sex couples, but even after such a victory for the LGBT community, there are still those intent on igniting a political debate over something as (seemingly) trivial as bathroom rights. During the July 2015 delivery of the Obergefell majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined the parameters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution when he stated that “the Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”[5] Feeling comfortable defining and expressing one’s own

Although partisanship shouldn’t necessarily be at the crux of the debate over the Bathroom Bill, when it passed the North Carolina Senate, a capital (R) preceded every legislator’s name who voted in favor. mandates, or instituting rules about landlordtenant relations.”[6] After the Republicans gained control of the state legislature and the Governor’s seat in 2012, progressive reforms were put to a halt, making way for more conservative policies. Governor McCrory is attempting to satisfy that same constituency as he begins his reelection faceoff against Attorney General Roy Cooper. Although partisanship shouldn’t necessarily be at the crux of the debate over the Bathroom Bill, when it passed the North Carolina Senate, a capital (R) preceded every legislator’s name who voted in favor.[7] By utilizing this grassroots approach to

lawmaking, Charlotte’s city council passed an anti-discrimination ordinance in February, which would have afforded additional protections to lesbian, gay, and transgender people in their capacities as customers and employees. What sparked the most controversy, however, was the ordinance’s provision that would have allowed transgender people to use the bathrooms associated with their gender identity. The majority Republican legislature would have likely overturned the ordinance with or without the bathroom provision; however, its inclusion gave the General Assembly all the ammunition it needed to garner support for its repeal. When defending the bill on NBC, Governor McRory stated, “I wonder if your daughter or son was showering and all of a sudden a man walks into the locker room and says, ‘This is what I am.’ Would you want that for your child?”[8] The bathroom provision allowed the North Carolina legislature to strike down the anti-discrimination bill by crafting a narrative in which security and privacy were being completely overhauled, and transgender women were potential rapists just waiting to strike.

The journalists, activists, and citizens who have attempted to shine a light on the bigotry in the North Carolina state government have found that the evidence to support the claim that there is any danger in allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice, is essentially nonexistent. Those defending the law have been unsuccessful in pinpointing a single case that demonstrates the need to legislate where we use the restroom.[9] Because of this lack of evidence, it was only a matter of days before the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lamba Legal, and Equality North Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging the law, calling it “legalized discrimination.”[10] This claim was further substantiated when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper stated on March 29th that he would not defend North Carolina in the suit, calling the passage of HB2 “a national embarrassment.”[11] Human rights activists were not alone in challenging the legislation; many companies, including American Airlines and Paypal, who have strong business ties to the state, have spoken out against the law.[12] This, however, will carry little weight in the grand scheme of things.

While several large corporations have explicitly stated their opposition to the law, what concerns Governor McCrory isn’t the approval of big business, which will likely maintain its economic partnerships with North Carolina despite whatever negative exposure the state receives. His stigmatization of the LGBT community stems largely from his ultimate goal of winning the upcoming gubernatorial race. While politicians often go above and

beyond when running for a competitive seat in government, it’s especially repugnant when they use the plight of others, in a painfully obvious way, to satisfy their voter base. Governor McCrory isn’t the only politician utilizing these

What measures higher on the scale of psychological burden: undergoing a pelvic exam every time you’re questioning which bathroom to use or sharing a mirror and a hand dryer with someone who is transgender? antics. It isn’t difficult to draw the connection between the North Carolina Bathroom Bill and presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, in the sense of attempting to define “the other” in the American — or in this case the North Carolinian — psyche.

As the lawsuit against HB2 presumably reaches the threshold of the United States Supreme Court, legal precedents will likely be created as we move forward into societal acceptance of gender existing on a spectrum.

However, what mustn’t be forgotten is the intent of certain individuals in government when committing political stunts. Governor McCrory wouldn’t have been able to successfully spearhead such an intransigent, bigoted law if he wasn’t attempting to appease both his Republican base, and those individuals who voted for him in the first place. What we often forget is that this unfaltering hatred is being welcomed, and by millions of people within this country. As many of us celebrate the societal progressions of the last 25 years, there are millions dreading the thought of choosing acceptance over prejudice. Luckily, we can do our part by fostering civility, in our personal lives and at the ballot box, because we cannot thrive if we allow ourselves to be led by anyone advocating for intolerance.

SOURCES: [1] United States Supreme Court, OBERGEFELL ET AL. V. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. [2] Emanuella Grinberg, “The Unexpected Impact of N.C.’s Bathroom Law” [3] Amber Phillips, “Why the Lawsuit against North Carolina’s ‘bathroom Bill’ Is a Huge One for LGBT Activists” [4] Editorial Board, “Transgender Law Makes North Carolina Pioneer In Bigotry” [5] Jonathan Adler, “SCOTUS Finds Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage” [6] David Graham, “North Carolina Overturns LGBT-Discrimination Bans” [7] Tal Kopan and Eugene Scott, “North Carolina Governor Signs Controversial LGBT Bill” [8] Zach Ford, “No, Nothing Pat McCrory Says In Defense Of North Carolina’s Anti-LGBT Law Is True” [9] See 4.

[10] Niraj Chokshi, “Liberal Groups Sue North Carolina Over Transgender Bathroom Law” [11] Jon Kamp and Cameron McWhirter, “Business Leaders Speak Out Against North Carolina’s Transgender Law” [12] Molly Reilly, “Businesses Are Joining The Fight Against North Carolina’s Anti-LGBT Law”

13

featured essays

A YEAR ON WHAT DID THE UMBRELLA REVOLUTION ACHIEVE?

Jordan Barrett Choy, History and Political Science 2017

O

n the morning of June 5th, 1989, a man in a white shirt stood in front of a military armored tank in one of the most iconic photographs of that year. The same year that the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Germans, and the Romanians overthrew their communist oppressors, the people of China attempted to do the same by protesting in Tiananmen Square.[1] Where the revolutionaries of Eastern Europe found jubilance and victory, the same attempts in China resulted in massive bloodshed. Protesters were massacred in the streets of Beijing. The violent clash between the government and unarmed protesters on June 4th, 1989 has been forever memorialized through photos like the one of the man blocking the tanks (which was taken on the morning after the massacre). Every year since the massacre took place, the people of Hong Kong have gathered by the thousands in Victoria Park to hold a candlelight vigil for the victims.[2] The protests of 1989 were momentous occasions, exposing the turmoil behind the Iron Curtain and provoking mass mobilization against autocratic governments.

In the early 2010s, a new wave of revolutions hit the autocratic world with the Arab Spring wiping away dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. With the exception of Tunisia, the Arab Spring movements seem to have failed, ushering in a new dictatorship in Egypt, creating a power vacuum in Libya, and triggering a bloody civil war in Syria.

[3] A similar event occurred early last year in Ukraine, where the Euromaidan revolution ousted President Yanukovych and triggered a war in the eastern part of the country.[4] While all of these movements in the Middle East and Eastern Europe can be considered comparable in that they led to mass bloodshed and turmoil, one unique movement broke out to challenge this paradigm: the Umbrella Revolution of Hong Kong. In addition to the non-violent nature of the protests, the movement was unique because it appeared to produce very little in the way of tangible effects. The difficulty in trying to achieve political change in Hong Kong is due to the fact that the state of its political freedom is entirely at the discretion of Beijing. The current Xi administration makes it clear that it will

14

not tolerate dissent and declared the protests “illegal.”[5] Although there is no obvious action that can be taken to ensure democracy, it is obvious that inaction will kill democracy as surely as the events of Tiananmen Square.

Now, at the one year anniversary of the mass protests in Hong Kong, a new wave of uncertainty and nihilism is emerging in the city.

I lived in Hong Kong for more than fourteen years, and I remember being taken to one of the annual July 1st protests when I was seven or eight. Although I did not understand what it was about and could not speak Cantonese, it still struck me to see such a strong display of defiance. Over the years I came to love Hong Kong, and though I now speak Cantonese with a horrendous accent, Hong Kong is an important part of my identity. Despite being a half-white American citizen, I can still say with a degree of confidence that Hong Kong is my home, and I feel as though a right as basic as democracy is something that my home deserves. The Communist Party officials in Beijing do not share this view. They have expressed a desire to choose potential Chief Executive candidates, allowing only two or three to run after being selected by a generally pro-Beijing nominating committee.[6] Pro-democracy protesters feel that this system would likely undermine any democratic reform.

As the protests broke out, I remember the frustration of being stuck in the United States, being informed along with everyone else about the events through a combination of social media and breaking news alerts. In my home city, streets that would ordinarily be bustling with pedestrians were choked with protesters — and unthinkable sights like barricades, tear gas, and police beatings became ubiquitous on Western television and computer screens. While images of police in riot gear, using tear gas and pepper spray, are often accompanied by images of rioters provoking such a response, photos of the Hong Kong protesters showed that they had merely unfurled umbrellas. When I returned home in the winter of 2014, there was almost no sign of upheaval. The major protest sites at Central, Wan Chai, and Mong Kok all appeared as they had when I left for the U.S.; people carried on as if nothing had happened. With a

year of hindsight to reflect on the movement, the protests seemed to accomplish little other than strike sharp divisions into the ordinarily moderate society of Hong Kong. Even in the early days of the protests, the vast majority of people in Hong Kong did not support them. The demonstrations did manage to successfully gain widespread international support and awareness for the cause, but China’s iron grip on domestic media outlets and the internet meant that international support did not tangibly affect the affairs of Hong Kong. It also leant ammunition to Beijing’s natural proclivity to blame foreigners for increased interest in political freedoms.

One can note with a degree of cynicism that the movement’s major political victory came in a bizarre episode that caused the Legislative Council to veto Beijing’s reform package. Essentially, Pro-Beijing members of the Legislative Council walked out right before a key vote on Beijing-authored electoral reform that would have created what pan-democrats considered a “fake democracy.”[7] The ill-timed walkout by pro-Beijing lawmakers seemed to have been a delaying tactic used to allow for senior members to show up to the vote.

However, the pro-democracy councillors saw that they could still form a quorum, and used the opportunity to vote down the measure.

But other than pro-Beijing leaders shooting themselves in the foot, there seems to be little that the pro-democracy movement can do to protect Hong Kong. The CCP seems determined to shove what resembles Soviet-era salami tactics down the throats of the city’s voters in order to keep Hong Kong subservient.

A Shanghai venture capitalist named Eric Li wrote an article for the Washington Post characterizing the protests as a result of “a fringe of radical (or sometimes, more charitably, merely naive) ideologues...recasting the real and legitimate economic grievances of people here as a fight about Hong Kong’s autonomy.”[8] He also equates the movement with the Euromaidan revolution, coining the term maidancracy to describe this new wave of protest. Mr. Li’s arguments are similar to the official Beijing stance, given that when the government wasn’t actively censoring all

coverage of the protests from its own people, officials were claiming that the movement was radical and deserved to be met with increased use of police force. Beijing also adopted the classic authoritarian policy of blaming foreign countries for the increased democratic fervor. Mr. Li states that the protests stem from economic conditions, with income inequality leading to general dissatisfaction, which was co-opted in a sinister plot by pro-

Street politics and further “illegal” action may become the new norm. The very structure of the government has made legislative measures in favor of democratic self-actualization impossible. democracy radicals. The bewildering portrayal of democracy as being radical seems more appropriate coming from an 18th century aristocrat than from a 21st century venture capitalist, but in any case, Mr. Li’s arguments shed an important light on his and Beijing’s

refusal to accept that, amongst the people of Hong Kong, there is a genuine desire for democratic reform. Importantly for the prodemocracy movement, the recent district council elections saw a number of seats gained for “Umbrella Warriors,” although a number of seats were also gained by pro-Beijing candidates.[9] Exactly what Hong Kong will look like in the future is a murky and uncertain prospect.

The Hong Kong I left was hopeful and defiant, as the grim uncertainty had yet to be tested.

The Hong Kong I returned to in the summer of 2015 was changed. Disillusionment and apathy became the primary political outlook.

It would not be unreasonable to predict that future political expression will be shaped by anger and frustration. Street politics and further “illegal” action may become the new norm. The very structure of the government has made legislative measures in favor of democratic self-actualization impossible. This is in part the result of functional constituencies, which give seats in legislature directly to special interest groups. The existence of functional constituencies in the Legislative Council means that there will always be a large number of reliably pro-Beijing seats, making any prodemocracy votes difficult if not downright impossible to pass. Faced with a Beijing that is under the control of the Xi Jinping, a disturbingly authoritarian leader, it seems like the coming tide cannot be stopped.

With regard to the future of Hong Kong, difficult questions must be asked. Exactly how far must the pro-democracy “radicals” go to keep Beijing from interfering with Hong Kong’s affairs? How far must Beijing go for the sake of “order”? I can’t pretend to know the answers,

but Hong Kong’s future is bleak. I hope that Beijing can learn to accept a Hong Kong that has free and fair elections, where the spirit of democracy can be expressed freely. I hope Hong Kong can enjoy the liberty that it rightfully deserves. There is something fundamentally unsound about a state claiming that a demand for democratic self-actualization is radical and unrealistic. The Xi Administration’s vision of China is one of limited freedom and a unified,

Exactly how far must the pro-democracy “radicals” go to keep Beijing from interfering with Hong Kong’s affairs? How far must Beijing go for the sake of “order”? controllable Party. Whether or not Hong Kong will indeed be protected by “One Country, Two Systems” seems entirely at the discretion of Beijing, and there seems to be little that can be done to change this. The umbrella is indeed an apt symbol for the protest movement, as it can only provide limited protection against the unstoppable force of nature that comes as inevitably as the typhoon.

SOURCES: [1] Malcolm Moore, “Xi Jinping Declares Hong Kong Protests Are ‘Illegal’” [2] Joyce Ng, Stuart Lau, Jeffie Lam, and Tony Cheung, “Victoria Park Lit Up at June 4 Vigil as ‘Localist’ Groups Stage Alternative Rallies” [3] Noah Rayman, “5 Things You Should Know About The Tiananmen Square Massacre”[4] “Ukraine Crisis: Timeline,” BBC. [5] Garry Blight, Sheila Pulham, and Paul Torpey, “Arab Spring: an Interactive Timeline of Middle-East Protests” [6] Eric Li, “The Umbrella Revolution Won’t Give Hong Kong Democracy. Protesters Should Stop Calling for It” [7] Gary Cheung, “Overwhelming Majority of Hongkongers Want Occupy Protests to End: Survey”[8] Donny Kwok and Yimou Lee, “Hong Kong Vetoes China-backed Electoral Reform Proposal” [9] Michael Forsythe, “A Year After Democracy Protests, Hong Kong Vote Reflects Split on China” IMAGES:

15

featured essays

WHY

DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH

AMAL CLOONEY Kara Morgan, Political Science and International Affairs 2017

I

nternational lawyer Amal Clooney has taken on the case of imprisoned investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova, signaling hope for media freedom in Azerbaijan and striking fear in the hearts of repressive regimes everywhere.

Khadija Ismayilova, 37, is an investigative journalist from the former-Soviet state of Azerbaijan. She dug into the regime of President Ilham Aliyev, whose government has been described as a “pretty tightly structured criminal organization” by Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.[1] Ismayilova worked as a reporter with the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Baku offices before they were raided and shut down in December 2014, and is a partner of the investigative journalism nonprofit called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.*[2][3] Ismayilova found suspicious contracts, extensive wealth, and previously unknown properties held in the name of President

16

Aliyev’s family members.[4] According to OCCRP, her 2014 investigation linked Aliyev’s daughters to Azercell Telecom, one of the largest mobilephone operators in Azerbaijan.[5] But a journalist cannot accuse a dictatorial head of state of corruption and fraud and get away with it. She was initially arrested in December 2014 on charges of the “incitement of suicide” of a colleague. After nearly a year in pre-trial detention and the dropping of the initial charges, Ismayilova was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for tax evasion, embezzlement, abuse of power, and “illegal entrepreneurship.”[6][7] Ismayilova is not Amal Clooney’s first journalist client. Clooney, 38, is a BritishLebanese international human rights lawyer who has defended Mohamed Fahmy, prominent Al Jazeera journalist, and Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks.[8] Ismayilova is known for her integrity, her determination, and her laughter in the

U.S. citizens must take note of the case of Khadija Ismayilova.

Despite our place as the self-proclaimed “land of the free,” the freedoms we are guaranteed can just as easily be snatched away.

face of the dictatorial regime that has done everything it can to suppress her writing. She remains smiling and hopeful in many of her photographs and her letters released since her arrest. Published by the New York Times and RFE/RL, Ismayilova tells the world: “What is a 7 1/2 year sentence? It does not frighten me…I am so much wealthier than all the corrupt men and women I have written about. Because I have values for which I am ready to even sacrifice my life.”[9][10] Ismayilova’s fortitude is inspiring, but her situation is not unique. She is one of eight reported imprisoned journalists in Azerbaijan in 2015, of a total 199 journalists worldwide.

[11] U.S. citizens must take note of the case of Khadija Ismayilova. Despite our place as the self-proclaimed “land of the free,” the freedoms we are guaranteed can just as easily be snatched away.

For those paying attention to Azerbaijani politics, Ismayilova’s case is heartbreaking but unsurprising. Azerbaijan is designated “not free” by NGO Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2015 report, ranking 188th worst out of 199 countries evaluated.[12] Reporters Without Borders ranked the country as 162nd out of 180 countries and described the viable choices for reporters and bloggers in the country: “shut up, flee abroad, or be jailed on trumped-up charges.”[13][14] For the U.S., there is still time to prevent such “Trumped-up” charges against journalists or oppositional actors. Several U.S. House Representatives have denounced the Aliyev regime for its suppression of free speech and journalism, yet the U.S. currently faces one of its greatest threats to its freedoms: a business mogul-turned Republican presidential candidate.[15] On February 26, 2016, we got a taste of what it might look like to have media suppression as the norm. Republican party presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump told a crowd in Fort Worth, Texas, that he would “open up our libel laws,” to make it easier for himself and others to sue newspapers for “purposely negative and horrible and false” articles.[16] This past January, Matthew MacWilliams of Politico Magazine asserted that the one trait linking Trump supporters is an “authoritarian inclination.”[17] For those who are undecided or ambivalent toward this presidential candidate, consider what “authoritarianism” entails. For Khadija Ismayilova, it means jail time for her journalism.

— Trump has been characteristically vague in his “libel law” proposal, but is consistent in his

condemnation of the media: “When people write incorrectly about you, and you can prove that they wrote incorrectly, we’re going to get them through the court system to change, and we’re going to get them to pay damages.”[18] When pressed on his stance in a March 2016 interview with the The Washington Post, Trump stated, “All I want is fairness.”[19] Trump’s statements have raised concerns regarding how he would approach press freedom in the U.S. if elected. Margaux Ewen of U.S. Reporters Without Borders predicted, “The fear of perpetual lawsuits would have a chilling

Libel, slander, and defamation laws exist for a reason: to ensure that we can think, speak, and write critically of the individuals who hold so much power in our lives. effect on journalists’ ability to do their job, and many newspapers would likely fold from the cost of defending lawsuits left and right.”[20] Libel is defamation in the written or tangible form, and is a civil, not a criminal, offense in the U.S. Libel must be done with malicious intent for the libeler to be required to compense their target, according to the Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

When asked whether he would remove the requirement for intended malice, Trump replied, “I think I would get a little bit away from malice without having to get too totally away.”[21] As Reporters Without Borders notes, libel is one of the accusations against Ismayilova and one of the tools used to suppress her investigations.[22] In countries around the world, from Bahrain to Kazakhstan, trumped-up libel and defamation laws are used to silence journalists and activists.[23][24] In Bahrain, according to Freedom House, “The criminal defamation laws make it difficult to provide critical coverage of public figures, and they

are frequently used to squelch reporting on corruption.”[25] The U.S. has been labeled “free” and is tied for 31st press freedom in the world by Freedom House. Reporters Without Borders, however, ranked the U.S. lower at 49th out of 180 countries in their 2015 report. Both Freedom House and RSF expressed concerns about clashes between reporters and police in demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as a lack of a “federal shield law” that would protect journalists from revealing their sources or confidential information.[26][27] With the implementation of Trump’s proposed libel law extensions, these rankings would surely sink lower and lower. Many leading human rights activists and government critics have fled Azerbaijan due to fear of persecution or imprisonment.[28] If the President of the United States promoted such media oppression, who’s to say what would happen to our own journalists, our human rights defenders, our Amal Clooneys?

— Mr. Trump responded to accusations of violations of basic human rights, “We’re not going to do anything with freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is vital, it’s important, it’s a cleansing system, it’s totally something that we can’t touch.”[29] For a candidate known for inconsistency in his stated opinions, his defense of the freedom of expression feels insincere. The effect is indeed chilling.

If we hope to maintain our ability to criticize our government freely, for our journalists to uncover the secrets of our power-holders, our politicians, and our businesspersons, without fear, we must reject this authoritarianism, this attack on a basic freedom. Libel, slander, and defamation laws exist for a reason: to ensure that we can think, speak, and write critically of the individuals who hold so much power in our lives.

The U.S. political system must take a look in the mirror. It must hold itself to the same standards to which it attempts to hold others.

In 2016, this means thinking long and hard before entering the voting booth. If we do see the election of authoritarianism this fall, better call Amal. *Kara interned at OCCRP from January to May 2015. The writing and opinions expressed in this article are entirely her own.

SOURCES: [1] Corey Flintoff, “As Oil Prices Drop, Azerbaijan Looks For Help From International Loans” [2] Victoria Macchi, “Azerbaijan Authorities Raid, Close Radio Free Europe Bureau” [3] Georgina Rannard, “Amal Clooney Takes on Azerbaijan to Free Another Jailed Journalist” [4] “When They Lock Up the Truth: Khadija Ismayilova and the Latin America Connection” [5] “Azerbaijan: Khadija Ismayilova Sentenced to 7.5 Years in Prison,” Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project,” [6] Christiane Amanpour, “Amal Clooney on Fmr. Maldives Pres.’ emotional reunion” [7] H.R.4264 - Azerbaijan Democracy Act of 2015, U.S. 114th Congress (2015-2016) [8] See 2. [9] Khadija Ismayilova, “Letter from Azerbaijan Jail: Khadija Ismayilova Speaks Out” [10] “Khadija Sentenced To 7 Years and 6 Months,” Azadliq Radiosu [11] “2015 prison census: 199 journalists jailed worldwide,” Committee to Protect Journalists [12] “Freedom of the Press 2015: Harsh Laws and Violence Drive Global Decline,” Freedom House [13] “Freedom of the Press 2015: Azerbaijan,” Freedom House [14] “2015 World Press Freedom Index: Details about Azerbaijan,” Reporters Without Borders [15] See 7. [16] Jose A. DelReal, “Trump, taking aim at the press, vows again to ‘open libel laws’” [17] Matthew MacWilliams, “The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter” [18] See 16. [19] “A transcript of Donald Trump’s meeting with The Washington Post editorial board,” DonaldJTrump.com [20] “Donald Trump wants to sue newspapers for publishing “purposely negative stories” [21] See 19. [22] “Petition: President Aliyev: release Khadija Ismayilova,” Reporters Without Borders [23] Legal Information Institute, “Libel,” Cornell University Law School [24] “Freedom of the Press 2014: Bahrain,” Freedom House [25] “Freedom of the Press 2013: Kazakhstan,” Freedom House [26] “Freedom of the Press 2015: United States,” Freedom House [27] “2015 World Press Freedom Index: Details about United States,” Reporters Without Borders [28] “European Parliament resolution on the human rights in Azerbaijan,” European Parliament [29] See 16. IMAGES: Via Candice Imbert / Council of Europe

17

featured essays

LENA DUNHAM’S PROMOTING FEMINIST DISCOURSE Lauren Corvese, Political Science 2016

T

he HBO series Girls — and its creator, writer, director, and star Lena Dunham — have attracted overwhelming media attention since the show first aired in 2012.

Girls has received mixed reviews; some applaud the show and Lena Dunham, a self-proclaimed feminist, for bringing women’s issues to the forefront of social and political discourse, while others are disappointed with the show’s lack of diversity and its privileged characters. Whether positive or negative, it’s clear that Girls has had a profound impact on the contemporary feminist debate.

Girls follows the lives of four friends in their twenties navigating post-college life in New York City. Rather than depicting the lives of the main characters as glamorous, as does its HBO predecessor, Sex and the City, Girls paints an honest, unspectacular portrait of the lives of millennial women. Its characters are flawed, beyond the cliché of their inability to find love, and, despite being highly educated, constantly making poor choices. But this is actually a major strength of the show: viewers may not want to be like the characters, but they can relate to them.[1] This aligns with Dunham’s vision for Girls, as she feels women “have been waiting to see a reflection of somebody who feels a little more like someone they could know, or someone they could be.”[2] Girls has stimulated extensive discourse on abortion. A powerful example takes place in season 4 when Adam’s new girlfriend Mimi-Rose gets an abortion without consulting him. She is calm and collected when she tells him about it, but Adam reacts poorly, knocking things over and yelling about how the decision should have involved him. It’s an interesting role swap, as

18

we are used to seeing men being adamant and emotionless about getting an abortion, while the woman tends to be unsure and overwhelmed.

Lena Dunham makes it clear that getting an abortion is a woman’s decision when MimiRose calmly explains to Adam, “I didn’t want to talk about it beforehand; I just wanted to do it.” It was a simple decision for Mimi-Rose; she knew she wasn’t ready to have a child, so she terminated the pregnancy. In the episode’s commentary, Lena Dunham explained that rather than having the decision revolve around the stereotypical feelings of pain and angst, she wanted Mimi-Rose to be the complete opposite: calm and confident in her decision. Instead of playing into the common portrayal of women and abortion involving “tears and regret,” Lena sought to ensure that “abortion is without stigma and is not something that women feel like they have to apologize for.”[3] While some may not have appreciated the arguably blasé treatment of an important decision, the representation of abortion without emotional turmoil was refreshing and empowering to watch. Girls was able to create a meaningful dialogue around not only on the right to choose, but also the stigma surrounding abortion.

One of the most productive discourses surrounding Girls has been the show’s representation of women’s bodies. On other television shows, if a woman is naked, she is typically in peak physical shape, thin, wearing makeup, and under perfect lighting. This is not the case with Girls. Lena Dunham, who is frequently nude on the show, is not thin, doesn’t wear makeup, and seems to have no concern about whatever unflattering position she puts herself in.[4] Just seeing this contrast is striking

and sparked a number of media conversations when the show premiered. The fact that we are surprised to see a “normal” body naked and having sex on television is a depressing testament to society’s ideas on beauty and how a woman’s body should look. The media is so saturated with images of women who have been photoshopped that it has become the status quo. The lack of representation of realistic

Girls is not purely for entertainment; it has a clear social and political agenda regarding society’s treatment of women and women’s issues. female bodies in typical pop culture makes women with body types that do not fit the norms of “sexy,” “feminine,” or “beautiful” feel that they aren’t worthy of showing their bodies, since society only seems to accept nudity if it conforms to normative femininity and beauty.

Girls challenges these norms by regularly featuring women like Lena Dunham naked and in an unglamorous way that de-sexualizes female nudity and refuses to appeal to male fantasies.[5] Furthermore, the exclusion of women with

imperfect bodies in popular culture suggests that physical perfection and beauty are the main qualities a woman must have to be attractive and find love. Girls challenges this through the romances and sexual encounters of Hannah. Despite not having a normative “sexy” body, the men in the show are still attracted to her.[6] Hannah has no trouble finding sexual partners, signifying that sexuality stems from more than physical appearance. This subversion of stereotypical ideas of attraction has caused backlash at times, especially in the second season when Hannah randomly meets a handsome doctor, played by Patrick Wilson, at the coffee shop where she works.

After following him to his home to admit that she had been dumping the shop’s trash there, he spontaneously invites her in for what turns into two days of good food, ping-pong, and sex.

The episode was followed by a media frenzy of critique from writers and viewers who could not fathom that a handsome, successful doctor could be attracted to Hannah, who is neither thin nor wealthy. Writers at Entertainment Weekly, Esquire, and Slate equated the episode’s plot to fantasy, with one critic saying it wasn’t believable because he couldn’t forget how attractive Patrick Wilson’s wife is.[7][8][9] The fact that multiple people share this view proves how vital it is that Girls continues pointing out the gender prejudices in our society. Girls’ representation of Hannah’s active sex life challenges the idea that beauty is the equivalent

of having a “perfect” body. This representation is important in both creating a dialogue and building awareness of the more subtle, harmful cultural attitudes towards women’s bodies.

Girls challenges these norms by regularly featuring women like Lena Dunham naked and in an unglamorous way that de-sexualizes female nudity and refuses to appeal to male fantasies.

Girls is not purely for entertainment; it has a clear social and political agenda regarding society’s treatment of women and women’s issues. This partially explains the strong criticism aimed at the show and even Lena Dunham herself — if Girls is supposed to be

feminist and help women, why does it feature an all-white cast that is privileged, collegeeducated, and middle-class? This is a fair critique, but it assumes that Girls should be an accurate representation of all women’s experiences. It would be impossible to embody that in a twenty-minute-a-week television show; in fact, a universal female experience is probably non-existent. In response to these concerns, Dunham explained that the show is a purposeful commentary on privilege and that it is meant to represent her own experiences, not the experiences of all women, which she is not able to speak to.

It may be because I am a white, middleclass, college-educated young woman, but I can see myself in the characters. Like Hannah, Marnie, Jessa, and Shoshanna, my friends and I struggle to figure out relationships, jobs, money, and identity. Girls not only represents an honest and unglamorous look at the lives of millennial women, but also challenges our culture’s attitudes toward women’s issues by stimulating feminist discourse. The show presents a unique take on abortion and forces its audience to reconsider its standards for beauty and the female body. With Girls, Lena Dunham embraces the idea that television isn’t just entertainment — it is art, social commentary, and political commentary.

SOURCES: [1] Meredith Nash and Ruby Grant, “Twenty-something Girls v. Thirty-Something Sex and the City Women: Paving the Way for ‘Post? Feminism’,” [2] Lena Dunham, interview, Weekend All Things Considered. [3] “Girls Season 4: Inside the Episode #6,” [4] See 1. [5] Stefania Marghitu and Conrad Ng, “Body talk: Reconsidering the post-feminist discourse and critical reception of Lena Dunham’s girls,” [6] See 5. [7] Lindsey Bahr, “Girls recap: I Just Want To Be Happy,” [8] Peter Martin, “The Girls Recap for Men: Self-Indulgent Dreaming,” [9] David Haglund and Daniel Engber, “Guys on Girls, Season 2,” IMAGES: Via Wally Gobetz on Flickr.

19

featured essays States will make between one and three appointments to the United States Supreme Court.”[2] Oh Bill, how times have changed.

Scalia’s death suddenly transformed that hypothetical into a stark reality. Republican presidential hopefuls pounced, declaring that the next president, not our current president, should nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

Twenty-eight minutes after I first saw a report of Scalia’s death, Texas Republican Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz tweeted: “Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”[3] For a Harvard Law alum, former Supreme Court clerk, Texas solicitor general, and man who describes himself as having “spent a lifetime fighting to defend the Constitution” and

A

DERELICTION OF DUTY

Reilly McGreen, Political Science 2019

F

ebruary 13, 2016: Antonin Scalia is dead.

The brilliant conservative jurist, beloved on the right and often demonized on the left, had for decades stood as a conservative titan and stalwart on the Supreme Court.

Scalia, 79, was discovered dead in his room at a luxury resort, where he had been visiting for the weekend, with plans to return to Washington.

News of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death sent shockwaves through Washington and the nation. An already contentious and extremely

20

unpredictable presidential race was turned on its head. At a CBS Republican debate that night, right off the bat, the topic of who would replace Justice Scalia was front and center.

All the candidates were in agreement, arguing that in the midst of a presidential election year, President Obama should not nominate someone to replace Scalia.[1] Candidates for the presidency, both Democratic and Republican, have been talking about and campaigning on the likely prospect of the next president having the opportunity

to appoint a number of new Supreme Court justices.

Ironically, a little over a month prior to Justice Scalia’s unexpected death, former President Bill Clinton, at a campaign rally for his wife, spoke about the importance of the fact that the next president may have that opportunity. It was an issue people weren’t really talking about: “We need to recognize something that has received almost no attention in this election, which is that the next president of the United

The fact is, no matter how the Republicans slice it, they are being derelict in their duties as United States Senators. argues that “we need to restore the Constitution as our standard,” he sure has an interesting way of looking at the Constitution.[4] On the evening of Scalia’s death, President Obama mourned the passing of the Justice, and delivered a speech in which he stated firmly that he would fulfill his constitutional duty to nominate a replacement for Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, irrespective of the fact 2016 is an election year. The President cited his duty, enshrined in the Constitution, to nominate a replacement, and reminded the American people of the Senate’s constitutional duty to “give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”[5] However, the Republican Senate leadership, and most of the Senate Republican Caucus, have no intention of doing that. Even prior to the president naming a nominee to replace Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he would not allow nomination hearings, citing the fact that it is a presidential election year. Furthermore, McConnell has argued, then and now, that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.” And the majority of his caucus, excluding vulnerable

incumbents facing tough reelections and some moderates, agree with him.[6] McConnell’s argument that the American people should have a voice, through the presidential election, in choosing the next justice on the Supreme Court is absurd. First of all, the president nominates a Supreme Court justice, and the Senate then determines whether or not that nominee will sit on the nation’s highest court. The American people do not have a direct say in this matter. However (and it is a big “however”), even if we were to agree that the American people should have a say in who the next justice will be, the fact is that they already did! The American people chose Barack Obama to lead the nation, not once but twice, in 2008 and again in 2012. Obama ran for a position, which, in the job description (see Constitution) stipulates that if there is a vacancy on the Court, the bearer of the office of the president will nominate a new justice, and the Senate shall advise and consent.

The fact is, no matter how the Republicans slice it, they are being derelict in their duties as United States Senators. Though they may not be breaking the law by refusing to hold nomination hearings, they are definitely not acting in the spirit of the Constitution.

President Obama’s nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court, is an extremely well-qualified, moderate, centrist jurist. He has been praised in the past by Senators on both sides of the aisle, some of whom are still in the Senate today. Some pundits have posited that, with a Democrat in the White House, Congressional Republicans could not hope for much better than moderate Merrick Garland.[7] Yet, as previously mentioned, Republicans have been the party of “no” on this since Scalia was reported dead. They said “no” to confirmation hearings, regardless of whom the nominee was. And now, even after President Obama nominated someone who has more experience as a federal judge than any Supreme Court nominee in history, the Republican Senate leadership and a majority of the Senate Republican Caucus are still refusing to even meet with Judge Garland, let alone hold hearings to determine whether or not he is qualified to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[8] Additionally, though McConnell and the remaining Republican presidential candidates claim that they want to let the American people have a voice in who the next Supreme Court Justice is, the fact of the matter is that a majority of the American people, 64%, believe hearings should be held to determine his eligibility to sit on the bench. Furthermore, a majority of the American people, 52%, believe that Judge Garland ought to be confirmed by the Senate for his Supreme Court appointment.

More important than the aforementioned reasons why Republicans should hold hearings, having a vacancy on the Supreme Court for an extended period of time could have potentially disastrous consequences. Prior to Scalia’s

With major and controversial cases regarding issues such as abortion, affirmative action, religious freedom, and immigration (to name a few) on the docket for this term, the country cannot afford to have a deadlocked court. death, a large number of Supreme Court cases were decided by 5 – 4 decisions. In late March, once the Supreme Court reconvened, we saw the first 4 – 4 tie in a case regarding unions and collective bargaining. If the vacancy on the Court remains for an extended period of time, it is not unlikely that ties like this will become common, and important cases will not be resolved, leaving lower courts’ decisions in place. With major and controversial cases regarding issues such as abortion, affirmative action, religious freedom, and immigration (to name a few) on the docket for this term, the country cannot afford to have a deadlocked court.[10] Not only are the actions of Leader McConnell and the majority of his Republican Caucus absurd, but they are also irresponsible and dangerous. The work of the Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be impeded by partisan politics.

Leader McConnell, Chairman Grassley, and the majority of the Senate Republican Caucus are being derelict in their duty as United States Senators. Though it might not be required, in the spirit of the Constitution, they should hold hearings to determine Judge Garland’s eligibility, and have an up-or-down vote on his nomination. This is fair, and, frankly, this is their obligation.

Senate Republicans: do your job.

[9]

SOURCES: [1] Jonathan Martin, “Republican Candidates Unite Against Obama on Replacing Scalia,” [2] Ben Kamisar, “Bill Clinton: Next President Could Reshape Supreme Court,” [3] Liam Stack, “Ted Cruz Says President Obama Should Not Name Scalia’s Successor,” [4] “Restore the Constitution | Cruz for President,” Cruz for President. [5] “Remarks by the President on the Passing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” The White House. [6] Burgess Everett, Glenn Thrush, “McConnell Throws down the Gauntlet: No Scalia Replacement under Obama” [7] Trevor Burrus, “Merrick Garland Is the Best Conservatives Could Hope For,” [8] Ariane De Vogue, Tami Luhby, “Who Is Merrick Garland?,” [9] “CNN - ORC International Poll,” [10] Adam Liptak, Larry Buchanan, Alicia Parlapiano, “How a Vacancy on the Supreme Court Affects Cases in the 2015-16 Term,” IMAGES: Via WikiCommon.

21

TRUMP PARTY

featured essays

AND THE

ESTABLISHMENT

Roshan Pai, Business Administration and Finance 2020

T

he 2016 election cycle is shaping up to be the most interesting in years. This is the result of a “revolution” brewing among both Democratic and Republican bases alike — where “outsider” candidates garner major support and their party establishments try to tear them down. The Democratic Party has had some success keeping Bernie Sanders at bay; while Sanders has about 900 delegates under his belt at the time of this writing, Hillary Clinton has about 1,223 and has an edge in the polls.[1] However, the Republican Party has failed to take down Donald Trump, who has consistently remained the primary frontrunner over the past nine months. Many believe the party establishment dislikes Trump because it lacks control over his messaging. Others think it’s because he’s too much of a divisive figure — given his controversial comments about building a wall on the Mexican border, his proposal to bar the entry of Muslims into the U.S., and his initial refusal to denounce the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.[2] However, another powerful reason relates to the fact that Trump’s views on many economic issues don’t appear to align with traditional Republican dogma; in fact, many of these views could be classified as liberal. Trump wouldn’t represent Republicans’ fiscal beliefs if he were in office. This contributes significantly to the Republican party’s aversion to the idea of a Trump presidency. Many would probably be puzzled and surprised that a somewhat fiscal liberal would have so much support from

22

a conservative voter base. The reality of this situation is that Trump seems to have awakened the party establishment to a key aspect of its voter base: most Republican constituents align with the party’s social ideologies, but less so with its economic ones.

Since the Reagan era, the Republican Party has proudly associated itself with Christianity, pro-gun policies, free trade, supply-side economics, and hands-off fiscal policies.

[3] Most Republican presidential candidates since Reagan have embraced these views.

The reason behind this could be attributed to close association with the “party” – Super PACs and wealthy donors who are closely tied with the RNC. This resulted in the Republican candidates essentially pledging allegiance to traditional Republican orthodoxy — fiscal as well as social. Since this went on for about three decades, the establishment developed the impression that their supporters agreed with all of these views — after all, nearly every eventual Republican presidential nominee seemed to share them. But this impression was only an illusion. If Republican constituents were truly in favor of traditional Republican economic policies, it would be unlikely for Trump to be the frontrunner — given his somewhat liberal stance on many fiscal issues. Now, if you were to tell Trump’s supporters that he was a fiscal liberal, many would probably deny it, due to years of party loyalty and a complete rejection of anything associated with the word “liberal.”

However, upon examination of Trump’s

positions, it becomes quite clear that Trump is not a fiscal conservative.

The first and most prominent position that Trump rejects is one of the core tenets of Republican orthodoxy: supply-side economics.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Trump was asked, “Do you believe in supply-side economics?” to which he responded, “I don’t fully believe in it.”[4] Going further than simply disagreeing with the economic theory, Trump also said that he doesn’t favor a flat tax, and has even said that implementing one would be unfair.[5] In addition, Trump made it quite clear that he favors a graduated income tax, albeit one with very low brackets.[6] Trump and his campaign have also continually stressed the need for the United States to abandon “free trade” in exchange for “fair trade.” His solution is to have tariffs on imports and to have taxes levied against corporations that don’t open jobs in the United States but still operate here.[7] To a fiscally conservative voter base, these positions should have signalled Trump’s rejection of fiscal conservatism.

And to an extent, it did. Conservative pundits like Glenn Beck picked up on this and said, “Donald Trump is a progressive. A progressive believes in high tariffs. A progressive believes the government is the answer. Donald Trump has shown time and time again he believes the government is the problem, and if it is run properly, it is the answer. Well that’s what a progressive believes.”[8] Despite Beck’s efforts to awaken conservative voters, Trump’s support

didn’t wane.

When it comes to Wall Street, Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to close tax loopholes for the ultra-rich.[9] Though this particular view may not be “liberal” per se, his views are shared by Occupy Wall Street, a movement despised by conservative Republicans.[10] Trump has said that Wall Streeters (like hedge fund managers) only “push money around” and aren’t paying much in taxes — and that that CEO pay is too high in America (though Trump acknowledged that the Boards of Directors are willing to pay CEOs such high salaries, so it’s not a major problem).[11] And yet Trump still maintains his popularity with much of the Republican base — even though conservative Republicans usually defend Wall Street from the liberals’ accusations of greed.

In addition to this, the fact that Trump doesn’t embrace traditional Republican orthodoxy can be emphasized by Paul Krugman’s support; the liberal economist recently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times with the headline “Trump Is Right on Economics.”[12] The fact that such a liberal figure would ever say anything remotely positive about a Republican candidate’s economic views speaks volumes about the political leanings of Trump’s economic beliefs.

Given all of these left-leaning views, one would wonder how exactly Trump’s social views may contribute to his support. The answer is that Trump hits all the right spots when

Trump seems to have awakened the party establishment to a key aspect of its voter base: most Republican constituents align with the party’s social ideologies, but less so with its economic ones.

and foreign policy (a ground war with ISIS).

[13] He frequently says that his favorite book is the Bible, that he would rather hear “Merry Christmas” than “Happy Holidays,” and that he absolutely despises “political correctness.”[14] All of these views fuel the zeal of his supporters.

Trump’s staying power has shown the Republican establishment that the true views of its constituents are different than it previously believed. Trump’s support mostly comes from those who embrace the social views of the Republicans but hold Democratic views on economic issues. These specific voters have voted Republican in the past because they were more loyal to conservative social issues than to liberal economic issues. Now that these voters have Trump, who embraces their social conservatism and economic liberalism, it seems that they will refuse to give up their support for him. In order for the Republican Party to maintain its voter base and loyalty among its constituents, it must change or adapt rather than attack. Otherwise, the party will either split or become irrelevant.

it comes to social conservatism, with stern views on immigration (strong border defense)

SOURCES: [1] Jonathan Martin, “Republican Candidates Unite Against Obama on Replacing Scalia,” [2] Ben Kamisar, “Bill Clinton: Next President Could Reshape Supreme Court,” [3] Liam Stack, “Ted Cruz Says President Obama Should Not Name Scalia’s Successor,” [4] “Restore the Constitution | Cruz for President,” Cruz for President. [5] “Remarks by the President on the Passing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” The White House. [6] Burgess Everett, Glenn Thrush, “McConnell Throws down the Gauntlet: No Scalia Replacement under Obama” [7] Trevor Burrus, “Merrick Garland Is the Best Conservatives Could Hope For,” [8] Ariane De Vogue, Tami Luhby, “Who Is Merrick Garland?,” [9] “CNN - ORC International Poll,” [10] Adam Liptak, Larry Buchanan, Alicia Parlapiano, “How a Vacancy on the Supreme Court Affects Cases in the 2015-16 Term,” IMAGES: Via Gage Skidmore on Flickr.

23

northeastern spotlight

DON’T

IN DEFENSE OF

SHOOT

NUPD Prasanna Rajasekaran, Economics 2018

O

n December 3, 2015, Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD) announced it would deploy semi-automatic rifles in campus police vehicles during “high-level threats.”[1] Condemnations of the decision have been strong, if expected. Trevor Noah compared Northeastern to prison, which, if you lived in IV freshman year, isn’t completely inaccurate.[2] Northeastern’s ability to make blindly controversial decisions never ceases to amaze, and most students seem to agree semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary at a place where the campus “Crime Log” is read purely for entertainment. It’s easy to brand this entire episode as another step in the wrong direction, another example of police having too much force at their disposal.

But after Planned Parenthood, San Bernardino, and Paris, I’m having a hard time justifying the outrage. This magazine has been very critical of gun policy in the United States, and rightfully so. I myself have enjoyed teeing off on previous Northeastern decisions regarding student politics.

But let’s be honest: America has a mass shooting problem. And college campuses, far from being exempt, are highly susceptible. In 2013, there were at least 27 shootings on or near college campuses.

[3] Just six months ago, nine students were killed in a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College.[4] And in 2007, 32 people were shot dead at Virginia Tech. It was the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.[5] NUPD’s decision is a direct reaction to these very real threats. Northeastern is not the first school in Boston to enact this policy. It is the fifth.[6] MIT, Tufts, BU, and UMass Boston arm specially-trained officers with tactical weapons to confront school shootings. MIT Chief of Police John Difava says MIT officers have semiautomatic rifles in the trunks of their cars at all times.[7] “Since Columbine, police strategy has changed dramatically and it’s now accepted practice that should there be an active shooter situation where you have a gunman inside a building that’s firing rounds, that you no longer have time to wait for the tactical units,” he said. “The officers have to make immediate entry.”

Difava’s claims are supported by an FBI study

24

of mass shootings from 2000 to 2013, which concluded that arming first-responding officers with tactical weaponry is a key factor in preventing death.[8] J. Pete Blair, a criminologist at Texas State University commenting on the study, noted specifically that “most people would prefer to have a patrol rifle; it gives them a tactical advantage over the shooter.”[9] Most of these mass shootings also require the deployment of a specialized force, like a SWAT team. But as Blair notes, “a lot of times the SWAT team can take longer to deploy than the actual event is going on, so a lot of times the SWAT will take a role in controlling the area, containing the area and then searching. But it is the line-level patrol officer that is where the rubber meets the road here, and that is the person who would be going in to stop the shooter.”[10] This directly addresses the criticisms raised by the Boston Police Department (BPD) about NUPD’s decision. BPD claims that it would be on the scene within minutes of a mass shooting, with a SWAT team and all necessary equipment in tow.

[11] But all Northeastern students are well-aware of the seemingly ubiquitous presence of NUPD cars on Forsyth and Huntington. In the case of an on-campus shooting, NUPD’s reaction time would likely be much faster than that of BPD. The first line of officers, deemed so important by the FBI study and Blair, would undoubtedly be NUPD. They’re the ones with the greatest chance to stop the shooting and save lives, and they would need the proper equipment to do so.

To ensure this weaponry is used judiciously, NUPD is implementing a strict training program for officers using the rifles. NUPD also says the rifles will be “deployed in officers’ vehicles during high-level threats like active shooters,” meaning these guns will only be carried in emergency situations. Now, considering the police brutality that has recently come to light thanks to Black Lives Matter, it’s right to be skeptical of claims made by police departments. But we must also remember that NUPD is not NYPD. It is not the Chicago Police Department. NUPD has no history of brutality. Like most campus police departments, it is heavily involved with the community. These

NU

Chelsea Canedy, Biology and Political Science 2018 officers’ jobs often include escorting students home after long nights of studying, taking students to the hospital when they’re too drunk, and generally providing any assistance that students might need — no matter how petty. There’s no reason to think the presence of these rifles during emergencies will result in an abuse of force.

That being said, in the age of unchecked police violence against people of color, we cannot write a blank check for police departments to use whatever force they deem necessary to prevent threats.

Arming police with necessary equipment during an active shooter situation is one thing. Allowing the police to make decisions without consulting the community at-large is another. This is where NUPD overstepped its bounds. The department failed to notify Northeastern students — or even BPD, its partner institution — before making its decision. With the killing of Laquan McDonald, and in many previous instances, we have seen that police often shirk transparency in the name of self-preservation.[12] This is not acceptable.

Northeastern has an already marginalized minority population. Only 3% of students here are black.[13] To exclude these communities, along with the rest of the Northeastern student population through an underhanded decision-making process is an egregious mistake.

The violence of 2015 has left us with a conundrum. Gun violence and mass shootings are on the rise. But those who can prevent gun violence, the police, regularly abuse their power by killing innocent black men, women, and children.

To make level-headed policy at a time like this is difficult. But it’s not impossible. NUPD’s decision is reasonable. Its method of reaching that decision is not. In an ideal world, the policy change we would see in reaction to gun violence is gun control, but our politicians have made it clear that their NRA money is more important than our lives. So instead, small campus police departments are forced to make unpopular decisions that distance them from already marginalized communities.

Our collective failure to enact gun control is having broad consequences. And so the question arises once more: will this be enough to create change?

A

s a school and as a nation, we have fallen into a reactionary culture of fear. In light of the San Bernardino shooting, it is understandable that our community is afraid.

Though fear is justified in a period of national mourning and tragedy, it is important to maintain objectivity when creating policies that will impact both student and community lives for years to come. Despite mass shootings on college campuses being more visible now than ever before, there has actually been very little change in the rate of mass shootings in the last three decades.

[1] The fear that our school and our society feels is rooted in the ignorance surrounding both mass shootings and mental health. The December 2015 decision to arm Northeastern University police with M-15 assault rifles was rash, especially considering the blatant lack of data supporting the policy.[2] Instead of responding to a national outrage with community engagement, the only widespread response was through an increased militarization of our on-campus police. While open forums, discussions to address this campus-wide fear, or a reflection on how mental health programs on campus could have been used, the university rushed into a serious decision that has long term consequences. This hasty decision, made during a time of national outrage, is no solution to our overall campus distress.

Rash decisions in response to the growing fear are not unique to Northeastern. Due to the highly controversial 1033 program, military grade weapons have become inexpensive and accessible to colleges, universities and local police offices with little regulation.[3] Many students justify NUPD’s actions by pointing to the fact that Tufts, MIT, the University of Massachusetts schools, and Boston University have previously permitted

their police departments to carry these assault weapons.[4] However, it is important to realize that the perception of the use of these weapons has drastically changed since the creation of these policies. Because of the Black Lives Matter proposed policy solutions, the 1033 program has been heavily contested in recent months.[5][6] In May 2015, President Obama created an executive order that reduced the range of military equipment that could be requested by independent policing facilities.[7] He also included a mandatory reporting clause to increase transparency of beneficiaries of the 1033 program. In many ways, Northeastern’s policy is a national regression in gun control. In fact, it sets a precedent for more militarization that is utterly inconsistent with gun reformative work that has been done by civil rights groups in the last few years.

The fear of over-policing is felt by many communities, especially by those of color. Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, spoke in a New York Times article on campus policing: “‘Mostly, I’m wondering why,’ she said. ‘As much as one might wonder about why major cities are getting this type of equipment — which I think we should wonder about and ask questions about — it seems even stranger to talk about it happening in voluntary communities that don’t experience much violent crime.’”[8] This fear for the safety of community members is not unjustified when it has been less than a year since Samuel Dubose, an unarmed 43-year old black male, was murdered at a routine traffic stop by University of Cincinnati campus police.[9] A recent Atlantic article illustrated the fact that “law enforcement on campuses have an inverse relationship: Increases to the numbers of officers on campuses are paralleled by declining

rates of reported crimes at the schools. Yet even despite apparent reduction in crime, the numbers of campus officers have continued to expand—as have their responsibilities. Officers have increasingly gained the ability to arrest and patrol outside jurisdictions, and the growth to lawenforcement hires has outpaced that of student enrollment.”[10] This is alarming considering the fact that within the state of Massachusetts, private institutions are allowed to withhold all police records.[11] State Representative Kevin Honan created Bill H.2758 in 2015 to address the concern of police transparency within private institutions.[12] Considering that this bill has not passed, the power that is becoming concentrated within many college communities is incredibly concerning.[11] Instead of accepting that all communities have weaknesses and then working to address them through concrete, measurable methods, Northeastern University Police Department has chosen to act independently and rashly with no community input. Students, community members, local politicians, faculty members, and the Boston Police Department all have independently solicited Northeastern about the lack of consideration of their voices on this matter.

What NUPD does not see in its creation of a new community-focused model, seemingly created in response to blowback from this decision, is that in order to have a community focus, community members must give input from the beginning of the initiative. This current addition of assault rifles to the Northeastern community was done with no external communication and is justified solely by the fear of a community that Northeastern is claiming to protect.

SOURCES: (In Defense of NUPD) [1] Aneri Pattani, “Northeastern to Equip Police with Semiautomatic Rifles” [2] Amanda Hoover, “Trevor Noah to Northeastern: ‘You Guys Have Officially Turned College into Prison’” [3] Tyler Kingkade, “There Were More Than Two Dozen Reported Shootings At College Campuses In 2013” [4] Sara Sidner, “Oregon Shooting: Gunman a Student at Umpqua Community College” [5] “30 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts” [5] Tina Martin, “5 Years After BU, Northeastern Arms Some Campus Police With Semi-Automatic Rifles; BPD Objects” [7] See 1.

[8] Ryan J. Reilly, “FBI Study Finds Mass Shootings On The Rise, Often End Before Police Can Respond” [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] See 1. [12] Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, “Justice Officials to Investigate Chicago Police Department After Laquan McDonald Case” [13] “Northeastern University Student Body Diversity,” Northeastern University. SOURCES: (Don’t Shoot NU) [1] Drew Desilver, “Why Timely, Reliable Data on Mass Killings Is Hard to Find.” [2] Aneri Pattani, “Northeastern to Equip Police with Semiautomatic Rifles,” The Boston Globe. [3] “1033 Program,” Public Safety and Security. [4] Tina Martin, “5 Years After BU, Northeastern Arms Some Campus Police With Semi-Automatic Rifles; BPD Objects,” WGBH News. [5] “Solutions,” Campaign Zero. [6] Molly Redden, “Pentagon Forces Ferguson to Return Two Humvees to Police Militarization Program,” Mother Jones. [7] Exec, Order No, 13688, 3 C.F.R. 50 (2015). [8] Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military Weapons,” The New York Times. [9] Richard Pérez-Peña, “University of Cincinnati Officer Indicted in Shooting Death of Samuel Dubose,” The New York Times. [10] Melinda D Anderson, “The Rise of Law Enforcement on College Campuses,” The Atlantic. [11] Shawn Musgrave, “Police Reports at Private Colleges Shielded from Public View - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. [12] H.R. H.2758, 189th Cong.

25

THE Jaclyn Roache, Political Science 2018

I

n late February, Northeastern’s Student Government Association (SGA) hosted a town hall meeting to provide the student body and general public with an opportunity to discuss the five proposed referenda questions being considered for the Spring 2016 ballot.

For SGA, the meeting was intended to serve as a show of good faith that would allow students to play a significant role in the referenda vetting process by providing direct input. After a year of student criticism of the SGA’s nonrepresentative nature and lack of transparency, many viewed the town hall as an indication that the Association was finally responding to its constituents’ concerns and reforming itself accordingly. Unfortunately, the meeting ultimately proved to be a disappointment.

It was held in a room with limited capacity beyond SGA members. While a few students and members of the public were allowed in, approximately 30 students found themselves left behind closed doors. Whether a logistical planning failure or an attempt to limit student activists’ involvement, it served as a troubling reminder of SGA’s penchant for privileging Association members’ voices over those of the students it supposedly represents.

After speaking with student organization leaders, senators, and high-level members of SGA leadership, I’ve reached the conclusion that Northeastern SGA as an institution is flawed and in need of systemic repair — the Association as it exists today is unaccountable, non-transparent, and unrepresentative of the student body.

SGA has been criticized for its lack of transparency for years, especially with regard to its referenda approval process. Every spring, SGA is tasked with the responsibility of vetting proposed referenda questions to assess them based on three criteria: feasibility, fairness of wording, and adherence to university policy.

At the end of the spring semester, referenda questions approved by SGA appear on the ballot for the student body’s vote, along with candidates for the next year’s President and Executive Vice President.

SGA voted on this year’s proposed referenda on February 25th. It approved two referenda from the Husky Environmental Action Team. It rejected referenda from Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and from Students Against Institutional Discrimination (SAID). These rejections have prompted an outcry from students, some of whom claim that the vetting process borders on autocracy.[1]

26

FAILU RE Attempts at Reform These accusations are not new. Last year, following SGA’s rejection of Students for Justice in Palestine’s referendum, students criticized the Senate for politicizing the vetting process and allowing personal views on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict to affect what should have been an objective vote on the referendum’s adherence to the three aforementioned criteria.

[2] In response to the blowback, SGA formed a Referenda Reform Committee, comprised of authors of past referenda, student organization leaders, SGA Executive Cabinet members, senators, and general students. The Committee met several times during the Fall 2015 semester in an attempt to reform the vetting process and promote objectivity and accountability.[3] The Committee produced a list of recommendations for SGA. Most significant among these was a call to transfer the responsibility of vetting referenda from the Senate to the much smaller Executive Cabinet.

[4] The Committee’s rationale was that by transferring the decision from a group of sixty to a body of six, it could minimize room for partisan debate.[5] The Committee also recommended releasing a record of the referenda voting results to the public in order to increase transparency.[6] These recommendations were debated in the Senate and written into SGA’s bylaws.

This year’s vetting process has demonstrated the difficulties of implementing these new policies. The bylaws clearly state that the vetting process is now the responsibility of the Cabinet, but they are vaguer when it comes to the second recommendation. The Committee recommended: “Although Executive Cabinet meetings are typically held in executive session [and thus private], the results of the vote of this meeting should be made public so as to increase transparency and ensure accountability with the student body.”[7] This recommendation was adapted into a bylaw, which states: “The Executive Board shall examine and approve or deny the question based on feasibility, adherence to University policies, and fairness in wording. Voting records from this approval shall be made public on the Association’s website within seventy-two hours of the vote.”[8] The bylaw is worded in such a way that it is unclear precisely what constitutes a voting record. Some of this year’s referenda authors

were under the impression that “voting records” meant a list linking Cabinet members by name to their votes, whereas some members of SGA believed the records should simply consist of a numerical count of votes for/against a proposal or abstaining — thus keeping individual Cabinet members’ votes anonymous. Ultimately, the Cabinet decided to employ the latter interpretation and retain their anonymity.

Email Controversy and the Cabinet’s Hypocrisy I spoke to several Cabinet members for this story. They cited “safety concerns” as the reason for not releasing the individual voting records. Selmon Rafey, Vice President of Student Involvement and one of the six Cabinet members who vetted the referenda this semester, received an anonymous email the day before the scheduled vote. The text of

the email was empty, but the subject line read, “Jew hater.” A day earlier, Rafey had met with Students for Justice in Palestine to discuss their proposed referendum; he posited that the email could have been a criticism of him for taking that meeting or an attempt to sway his vote on the SJP referendum. Rafey stated that he was “personally and professionally undeterred” by the email.[9] Rafey received the email on Wednesday, February 24th. On Thursday, the Cabinet voted on the five proposed referenda. On Sunday, SGA President Eric Tyler emailed memos to the leadership of both Students for Justice in Palestine and Students Against Institutional Discrimination to inform them that the Cabinet had rejected their respective referenda by a count of four nays, zero yeas, and two abstentions. When SJP and SAID’s

northeastern spotlight

OF OUR STUDENT GOVERNMENT leadership questioned Tyler about the absence of individual voting records, he responded that “the recommendation was to leave the voting process vague in the bylaws in case certain situations arose. We did have one e-board member receive a harassing e-mail so we will not be releasing the individual votes, only the vote counts.”[10] Executive Vice President Morgan Helfman and President Tyler both expressed that while VP Rafey was not concerned about the email, other members of Cabinet felt threatened.[11] Rafey told me that when he brought the email to the rest of Cabinet’s attention, they seemed surprised but did not press him to investigate the source of the message further. At the time of this writing, SGA has not launched an investigation, and according to President Tyler, there is no intent to pursue the issue in

the future.[12] If the email wasn’t threatening enough to warrant any sort of investigation, why is it still being evoked as the rationale for not releasing the individual voting records?

At face value, this may seem unimportant.

SAID and SJP’s referenda did not pass, and knowing who voted against them will not change that fact. What I find startling is the complete lack of accountability and transparency in the process. SGA’s secrecy leaves me to wonder whether Cabinet members are ashamed of how they voted, or if perhaps they are worried about backlash from students in the aftermath of an unpopular voting result. And if it is the latter, that is a troubling indication that they are unwilling to be held accountable to their constituents.

27

SGA’s Lack of Transparency and Accountability Of the six Cabinet members who vetted the referenda, only one was directly elected by the student body. The other five were elected by the Senate — another body that is not elected by the students. If we cannot have a direct say in who represents us, can we at the very least expect a modicum of transparency when our representatives vote on issues that directly affect us?

While the Cabinet claims that their decision to withhold the individual voting records stems purely from fear of harassment, Referenda Reform Committee member and former senator Neel Desai has heard differently. Desai reported that high-level Cabinet officials told him they were concerned that their votes on certain controversial issues could hurt their future career prospects. “I was disappointed with how senior Cabinet members implemented the Committee’s recommendations, despite there being clear intent behind the language. It seems as though they didn’t want the pressure, and they didn’t want to take responsibility for their votes,” he elaborated.[13] Regardless of the true intentions behind keeping the voting records private, the decision was a cowardly one. If Cabinet members truly feel threatened by the student body to the point of withholding their views on student affairs, then perhaps they are not qualified to represent us. Part of assuming public office is voluntarily forfeiting a portion of your privacy; it is unfair and unreasonable to expect your constituents to remain ignorant of your voting record.

There is a chasm at Northeastern between Student Government and the student body. We must have a conversation about the purpose of referenda and the Association’s role in vetting them. SGA’s constitution states that it “serves as the voice of the undergraduate student body” and “strives to promote student interests within the University and its surrounding communities in order to enrich education, student life, and the overall Northeastern experience.”[14] So what should be taken into consideration when

Northeastern SGA as an institution is flawed and in need of systemic repair — the Association as it exists today is unaccountable, nontransparent, and unrepresentative of the student body.

vetting proposed referenda? SGA’s bylaws state that a referendum is “a direct vote in which the undergraduate student body is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal,” but it is unclear whether referenda are intended to serve as a litmus test for the student body’s opinion on a particular issue, or whether they are meant to bring about measurable change at the university.[15] This debate is at the heart of the controversy surrounding the referenda vetting process.

The notion that only SGA can reform SGA is a dangerous one.

This line of thinking discourages progress and insulates the Association from its responsibility to heed student voices SGA insiders are well aware that the institution is riddled with problems. Neel Desai rated the level of transparency and accountability of SGA as “extremely poor” and remarked that SGA has “failed to hold up its responsibility to the students whom it volunteered to represent.”[16] Executive VP Morgan Helfman conceded, “The constitution sucks. I know it sucks. That’s why we can amend it.”[17] VP of Student Involvement Selmon Rafey acknowledged room for improvement in the referendum vetting process, stating, “Cabinet and Senate should realize, as the student body knows, that this process has to be continually reformed. If students feel a change should be made, then that’s something that needs to be looked at…There could be more transparency. If it were up to me, there would be a more public voting process and record. I would be disappointed if this exact referendum process stayed the same next year.”[18] The Rejection of the SAID Referendum Despite its awareness of the Association’s weaknesses, the Cabinet rejected Students Against Institutional Discrimination’s (SAID) proposed referendum calling for structural change in SGA. Following the vote, SAID filed an appeal with the Operational Appeals Board, but it ultimately ruled to uphold the Cabinet’s rejection.

Executive VP Helfman said that the proposal was “an amazing idea, but it can’t be done that way” because changes to SGA’s structure must be proposed as an amendment to the constitution. She added that she is currently

Recommendations How should we move forward? There doesn’t appear to be a clear consensus within SGA. Some Cabinet members oppose allowing Cabinet to vet referenda for fear that it is an unrepresentative body, while other members oppose leaving the responsibility to the Senate for fear that it is prone to politicizing debates that should be objective. The Cabinet members with whom I spoke were also skeptical of the model that exists at other universities, in which any proposed referenda questions with enough student signatures can appear on the ballot (without SGA vetting them first).

It’s important to note that SGA representatives have decent intentions. In our conversations, they were helpful, friendly, and eager to discuss what can be done to improve our student government. That being said, the Association is fraught with glaring problems that must be addressed. If SGA insists on continuing to vet referenda, then individual Cabinet members must be held accountable for their votes. Cabinet members who decline to disclose their voting records should not be eligible to partake in the vetting process. If SGA refuses to implement these changes, then the approval process should be overhauled, and all referenda questions should be voted on directly by the student body without prior vetting.

Transparency and accountability are critically important, particularly when it comes to issues that affect our student body directly.

It is time for SGA to take the steps necessary to finally become a body that truly represents its constituents’ interests. The failure to do so will initiate the loss of any remaining governing legitimacy that the Association currently retains with the student body.

SOURCES: [1] Sara O’Brien, “SJP Tramples Student Speech...Again,” [2] Anthony Turner, “A Senator’s Account of Monday’s SGA Hearing,” [3] Neel Desai, in discussion with the author, March 9, 2016. [4] Referenda Reform Committee, “Final Report,” Northeastern University Student Government Association, January 2016. [5] Selmon Rafey, in discussion with the author, March 3, 2016; Neel Desai, in discussion with the author, March 9, 2016. [6] Referenda Reform Committee, “Final Report.” [7] Ibid. [8] “Bylaws,” Northeastern University Student Government Association, Article V, Section E, Subsection 2b. [9] Selmon Rafey, in discussion with the author, March 3, 2016. [10] Eric Tyler, email to Sara O’Brien and Sofia Perez Arias, March 1, 2016. [11] Eric Tyler, in discussion with the author, March 10, 2016. [12] Ibid. [13] Neel Desai, in discussion with the author, March 9, 2016.[14] “Constitution,” Northeastern University Student Government Association, Updated January 2016. [15] “Bylaws,” Northeastern University Student Government Association, Article V, Section E. [16] Neel Desai, in discussion with the author, March 9, 2016. [17] Morgan Helfman, in discussion with the author, March 7, 2016. [18] Selmon Rafey, in discussion with the author, March 8, 2016. [19] Morgan Helfman, in discussion with the author, March 7, 2016. [20] Austin Williams, in discussion with the author, March 9, 2016.

28

featured columns

working on legislation to make SGA more accountable to students.[19] But can SGA be effectively reformed from within, or will outside student input be required to enact meaningful change? Austin Williams, a senator and one of the authors of the SAID referendum, believes that “the only way to restore SGA’s governing mandate and to meaningfully alter its processes is to publicly acknowledge a problem and to invite the student body to collaborate in identifying solutions.”[20] The notion that only SGA can reform SGA is a dangerous one. This line of thinking discourages progress and insulates the Association from its responsibility to heed student voices. Tasking a historically unaccountable and unrepresentative body with transforming itself into an accountable and representative entity is overly optimistic in that it places too much faith in the Association’s willingness to swallow its institutional pride for the benefit of the student body. As such, student input regarding the structure and constitution of SGA is imperative.

TRUMP, PALIN,

Aren LeBrun, Journalism and Media/Screen Studies 2016

AND THE MEMEFICATION OF U.S. POLITICS I

remember the day I finally did it. For way longer than I thought possible, I had managed to avoid the 21-minute political masterpiece that you’d all been raving so much about. I’m proud of how long I stayed away from the video. It teased my interest nonstop from all over the Internet, silently lurking around every shadowy corner of social media, reaching for me with a pssst. My poor knuckle suffered five arduous days of nervous chewing as I withstood the video’s mysterious powers, but I am only human.

First, there was Tina Fey’s SNL parody racing across my News Feed that part of me so badly wanted to watch. But on I scrolled, muting all of Trevor Noah’s blistering monologues along the way. And as if that weren’t hard enough, the New York Times tweeted a list of the speech’s most “mystifying” lines, which… okay, that one I do admit I clicked on, but I X’d out of it before the story had a chance to load on my phone, swallowing hard and wiping sweat from my face with a nerve-clammed palm.

The entire world was basically going nuts over this thing, and as a certified Internet-junkie myself, it was all I could do to duck my head and shut my eyes and valiantly shoo you all away like a sneeze was coming to me inside a crowded elevator. I withstood the meme-barrage until earlier this week, when I was accidentally subjected to a retweeted Vine of Ciara’s “1-2 Step” music video recut into a six-second mashup featuring a beautiful bite of that iconic “Alaskan” twang. And it was upon this Vine’s third loop that I at last submitted, realizing I could forestall this shameful yearning no longer.

Trump’s campaign itself is a violent and unstoppable force wreaking its diseased havoc all across our now-infected social and political experience, outside of any one person’s control to stop.

For the record, let’s have it be known that I did not avoid the video of Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump due to some imaginary high-brow journalistic integrity or anything like that. It may seem as if my concerns for noble avoidance were related to ethics, but this isn’t the case. Simply put, I was afraid to watch the video because of an honest and totally unsophisticated fear of being let down.

Because my thinking was this: When I first heard from a coworker that there was a real-life

video of Sarah Palin announcing her enthusiastic endorsement for Donald Trump in Iowa just 13 days before the caucus, I thought that it was too good to be true. Certainly the TV pundits and the Vine stars and the pretty much entirety of Twitter were exaggerating the speech’s lunacy.

I mean, come on. Relatively speaking, how bad could this endorsement even be in comparison to the lofty standard of near-literal brainlessness that she set during the 2008 election? That kind of political circus show was a once in a lifetime experience, one to be cherished forever in our bittersweet backlogs. 2008 Sarah Palin was our Comet Catalina. She was our Woodstock. To expect any human – even Palin herself – to out-do those Katie Couric interviews or to top those debate performances… well, that would surpass unreasonable and enter into the territory of downright greed.

But anyway, right. So I finally watched it. And then I did it again. And then again once more.

Midway through that third viewing I took my first breath in about an hour. Be still, my beating heart.

They say the course of true love never runs smooth – but my goodness if it isn’t worth it.

The video of her speech was everything I could have hoped it’d be and more. This was Sarah Palin in peak form, picking up right where she left off.

There was alliterative rhyming (“Right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers of our guns our God and our religions!”). There was unflinching condemnation of P.C. dogma. (“They’ve been wearing this, uh, political correctness kind of like a suicide vest!”). There was nuanced foreign policy

29

featured columns

Aren is a Spring 2016 featured columnist.

His column “For Some Reason I’m Not Concerned” analyzes the ongoing presidential nomination process by highlighting how corporate and social media are facilitating the spectacular collapse of the American twoparty system.

discussion (“Tell ‘em to go ‘Kick ISIS’ ass!’”).

There were audible scoffs toward the mainstream media and its unbending demands for such liberal heresy as substance and fact-checking. There were words that don’t exist in any of the world’s major languages. There was her patented disregard for both logic and sentence structure. The slogan “Make America Great Again” was used seven times. Which calculates to about once every three minutes.

And then of course there was the Donald himself. Through every nonsensical word of Palinese, every butchered sentence and minced grammatical rule, there he was at stage right, grinning those wet little lips at the camera and into our souls, a cocky smirk glued across that Cheetoencrusted leather face made famous by nepotism and reality TV. Donald J. Trump (whose Wikipedia intro paragraph reads “American business magnate, billionaire investor, socialite, author, television personality, and candidate for President of the United States”) exuded his trademark smugness to a degree of palpability that is just below actual porous ooze as Palin rambled aimlessly on his silent behalf.

Something else that should be pointed out – not for a single one of the 1,271 consecutive seconds of simultaneous enthrallment and stunned disbelief was I free from the thought of how utterly and entirely perfect for one another these two clowns truly are.

Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are magnificent benefactors of an era that has enjoyed a near total fusion of politics and entertainment. It does not take a microscopic eye to see how explosively polarizing they both are in the news and in everyday discourse. The country is beginning to experience a genre of “polititainment” that has for a long time been disturbingly predictable, and now is here to stay. As is consistently true with any figurehead of American sociopolitical polarization over the past decade, Trump and Palin are both Internet meme goldmines. And now they are together! An almost poetic union… but no, better, because we can make Vines and stuff out of it.

Now, a common and perhaps superficially valid criticism that we all have for the media and each other with respect to Donald Trump’s campaign (plus by extension the Sarah Palin endorsement [and plus by dual extension this article]) is: Why are we glorifying it so much by talking and arguing about it? If we shut up and stop the jeering/ laughing/outrage, won’t he go away? Won’t this madness end if we simply allow it to?

At surface level that seems like an irrefutable argument. The problem is that the Trump phenomenon has taken on the characteristics of a social virus, infecting the fabric of political discourse across all platforms, mediums, and genres. And there is very little you or I or any one person can do to stop the memetic sensation that is Donald Trump and his band of racist turd badgers, and here’s why.

First, when analyzing someone whose image is so propagated across social media in the form of SOURCES:

30

[1]

viral memes, it would be wise to have a look at the origin of that term itself. The word “meme” most likely brings to mind the image of a silly photo spreading around the Internet with relatable text superimposed over the margins that appeals to our collective societal joys and miseries (a la Scumbag Steve or Bad Luck Brian). In truth, “meme” is a word much older than the Internet. It’s been a part of the English lexicon since 1979, when British media futurologist Richard Dawkins coined the term in his book The Selfish Gene.[1] According to Dawkins, a meme is simply a

It would be lazy to chalk up the Trump phenomenon as some kind of mysterious enigma, to pretend that we don’t understand where the powerful infectiousness of this campaign is coming from. cultural item that passes brain-to-brain. These sorts of things were around way before there was a Scumbag Steve or a Bad Luck Brian or (a personal Internet meme favorite of mine) the Bernie Sanders side-eye. Memes include pop songs and advertisements and brand logos/ slogans and religious doctrine and sports fandom and celebrity lives. The following is a passage by Dawkins, explaining the science of what he terms “memetics.”

“Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation… [an idea] can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.”

The Donald Trump online polititainment phenomenon exists on the same viral frequency as any other meme in the meme pool. We talk/ post about, criticize, laugh at, and support him for the exact same reasons that cultural memes have existed and will always. Ideas that evoke intense feeling always spread rapidly from brain to brain, just the same way that genes pass from person to person within a gene pool, or a contagious virus from cell to cell within a once healthy host. It is no coincidence whatsoever that the Trumps and Palins

of the world are rising to cultural prominence now that there exists an electronic platform for ideas and information to undergo brain to brain transfer at a rate of speed unlike anything this species has ever seen before.

Sarah Palin parody videos (professional and user-generated), Trevor Noah monologues, satirical imitations, annoying tweets (the occasional from yours truly), etc. are circulating social media at a feverish pace. Already the Palin endorsement has Trump’s campaign multiplying virally through our cultural thought-sphere the way rabies festers beneath an untreated chunk of weasel-chewed flesh. And, just like rabies (a disturbingly apt analogy), Trump’s campaign itself is a violent and unstoppable force wreaking its diseased havoc all across our now-infected social and political experience, outside of any one person’s control to stop.

Palin’s endorsement is the latest step in a political performance that’s been one of the most fascinating spectacles I’ve ever witnessed.

There is anger and outrage and sarcasm all across the Internet, but also passionate support (manifesting in genuine [if horrifically spelled and/or unironically CAPS-locked] adulation). The culturally memetic virus that is Donald Trump is fueled by the left’s stunned disbelief just as much as it is by the hair-yankingly ignorant support of his voter base who’re out there picking dandelions somewhere in deep right.

It would be lazy to chalk up the Trump phenomenon as some kind of mysterious enigma, to pretend that we don’t understand where the powerful infectiousness of this campaign is coming from. Whether it’s love or hate or confusion or trollish delight or some other strong emotion, the fact remains that many of us feel some sort of tangible way about this guy. We are compelled to participate in the discussion, to make fun, to share memes, to shout our logically unhinged support, because, on some level, we are entertained. Donald Trump never lets us down. If there’s one thing that bigoted, misogynistic, Fascist blowhard can do, it is put on a show.

Despite a handful of losses to Rafael Edward Cruz, Trump commands a serious lead in the GOP nomination process. If he ultimately wins and goes on to the general, we the people will ultimately be faced with one of two Possible and Mutually Exclusive Conclusions. (P & M.E.C. #1): Trump loses in the general election in November, logic and virtue prevail, global geopolitical cataclysm without historical precedent is avoided, things return to what could be referred to in most knowledgeable circles as “normal,” etc. (P & M.E.C. #2): The virus stemming from the festering social infection that is Trump’s campaign (and just overall general existence) proves fatal to its host body (i.e. “us”) and the United States of America elevates a reality TV star and meme-sensation with orange hair and a seventh grade vocabulary into the chief executive leadership position of the Free World.

But you know, hey, on second thought, maybe that’s what we’ve deserved all along.

DEMOCRACY VS. THE RULE OF LAW Will Beaman, History and Political Science 2017

S

o far, 2016 is a year of foreboding for Liberalism. As Donald Trump cruises toward the Republican nomination and Hillary Clinton struggles to close the door on a bruising primary season, establishment writers are searching through American political archives for evidence that the Founding Fathers warned us of the dangers of “contagious passions” overtaking our democracy.

A recent New York Times piece by Republican insider Peter Wehner makes this view especially clear. Wehner quotes several of the Founders to argue that unchecked Democracy leads to someone like Donald Trump becoming president.[1] In particular, he quotes James Madison’s critique of Democratic structures that are prone to “popular assemblages, so quickly formed, so susceptible of contagious passions, so exposed to the misguidance of eloquent and ambitious leaders, and so apt to be tempted by the facility of forming interested majority parties, into measures unjust and oppressive to the minor parties.”[2] Wehner concludes, “The Founding Fathers, knowing history and human nature, took great care to devise a system that would prevent demagogues and those with authoritarian tendencies from rising up in America.”

Wehner is right to point out that Madison and other Founders would have seen Donald Trump as proof of the dangers of mass participation in politics. But since these were men who also believed that access to democratic institutions ought to be limited

to property-owning, white men, it is worth scrutinizing their skepticism of Democracy more closely. This peculiar moment in American politics is bringing to light some of the ambiguities in Liberal ideology, which under pressure can harden into contradictions.

Like all Western constitutions, the United States Constitution originated from the Magna Carta. But the Magna Carta—the first European document to establish “rule of law”—was the

Rather troublingly, the liberal fear of rightwing demagogues dovetails with a dangerous technocratic ideology that balks at the idea of non-elites participating in policy discussions. first political concession to be extracted from the feudal British monarchy by its subjects.[3]

It is important to recognize that the Civil War that led to the Magna Carta included populist uprisings by London’s poorer inhabitants.[4] It was the final compromise at the end of a bloody chapter of class struggle in Europe, and it wrested some power from the monarchy while falling short of the wishes and demands of the more radical agitators in London.

The idea behind “rule of law” was that free men would be protected from arbitrary treatment by kings and bishops by unchanging laws. Of course, “free men” was a social category that in 1215 excluded the vast majority of the English population, who were unfree peasants. The Magna Carta became sovereign, kept out of reach of the king as well as the masses of peasants. The “rule of law” must be undemocratic for it to work—it is a check against feudal tyranny as well as well as mob rule through democracy.

This leaves a lot of ambiguity in liberal Democracies like ours that assert the primacy of common law over public opinion while simultaneously claiming “We, the People” as the source of its legitimacy. Today, American students learn about the brilliant solution our Founding Fathers devised to put state power in the hands of the people without the dangers of mass participation in politics. Every American high school student learns that the U.S. Constitution imposes “checks and balances” on all distinct interests in government to ensure that no particular interest is overly represented.

Strangely, the American electorate is one of the interests that the Constitution checks.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). . IMAGES: Via WikiCommon.

31

featured columns

Will is a Spring 2016 featured columnist. His column “The Personal is Political” examines current events from a radical Left perspective that integrates political, social, and economic phenomena into a broader view of political economy as a whole.

In order to prevent “contagious passions” from infecting the public and electing tyrants, popular sovereignty is systematically tamed

by Constitutional constraints to political participation. The passage of any legislation requires the simultaneous consent of the the President, the House of Representatives, and the Senate—the members of which cannot be chosen by voters at the same time, and with only one-third of the Senate up for election at once. Amendments to the Constitution itself require the simultaneous consent of 39 dual-chamber legislatures, whereas other Western democracies like France can amend their constitution by a single act of the national legislature.[5] Considering that the American

32

Revolution contained no dimension of class struggle, it is no surprise that it produced such a reactionary document. We should keep this in mind to avoid elevating a bourgeois charter to grand philosophy, as American educators and constitutional scholars are wont to do.

This is not to suggest that any particular government hits just the right balance between democracy and “rule of law”—quite the opposite. The central contradiction of our Western democracies is that they conceive of laws as expressions of something other than democratic will—of universal truths that exist independent of the will of the majority.

But this was the same animating logic of the 18th century Estates-General in France, which

gave equal representation to the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate), and the rest of the population (Third Estate). Yet, while the Estates-General was so undemocratic as to bring about the French Revolution, in 1302 it was an unprecedented transfer of power from the Crown to the nobility and (to a much lesser extent) the people of France in the same vein as the Magna Carta. What seems fresh and emancipatory in one era is likely to be suffocating and oppressive in another.

This contradiction between democracy and rule of law is inescapable and must be embraced creatively if our social and political institutions are to survive economic and social crises. Rather troublingly, the liberal

fear of rightwing demagogues dovetails with a dangerous technocratic ideology that balks at the idea of non-elites participating in policy discussions. Rather than “politicize” complex government functions with popular accountability, technocratic liberals argue that lawmakers and bureaucrats should be isolated from the minutiae of electoral politics to govern objectively. Of course, there is no such thing as “nonpartisan” policy divorced from politics. The neoliberal consensus after the economic crisis of the 1970s in which the Third Way Democrats took control of the party is commonly billed as nonpartisan, while it in fact coincided with the largest transfer of wealth from low- to highincome Americans since the Great Depression.[6] In recent decades, particularly with the absence of the Soviet Union and the consolidation of power in global financial institutions, increasingly more functions of western democracies have been transferred outside the sphere of democracy. The most extreme example of this today is the Eurozone, where the 2015 showdown between the antiausterity Greek government and the European financial institutions brought to light the undemocratic structure of the Eurogroup.

The anti-austerity argument presented by the Greek government was that the Eurozone itself contains structural flaws that prevent it from surviving economic crises. When disparate economies are united by a common currency, the argument went, there must be some method of recycling the trade surpluses from the surplus countries to the deficit countries.[7] This is because under a common currency, the trade surpluses that accumulate in German banks automatically flow back to the deficit countries as credit. Whereas previously, the volatility of the exchange rates in trade deficit countries and trade surplus countries would have made the prospect of lending to Greece too risky for German bankers, the creation of a common currency eliminated the risk. In fact, German banks were compelled to lend to Greece because they were flush with excess liquidity from Germany’s trade surpluses. As public and private debts accumulate in Greece, its only option to remain competitive in trade is internal devaluation (cutting wages and consumer prices), thereby shrinking the size of the private sector. Of course, the debts owed by Greece are

still in Euros, so the internal devaluation makes the debts more difficult to pay. This is where the Eurogroup steps in to bail out the Greek government so that it can continue to service its debts, on conditions of austerity that shrink the size of the public sector. As public and private spending in Greece shrinks, national income (the sum of public and private spending) shrinks as well. Thus, under recessionary conditions, debt deflationary cycles within the Eurozone are inevitable.[8] A debt-deflationary cycle means that in deflationary times, “real income” (the ratio of nominal GDP to an index of average prices) can grow even as the nominal GDP shrinks. This is

In order to creatively embrace the contradictions of liberal democracy in a changing world, we cannot limit our thinking to which interpretation of the Founders is most correct as though the Constitution were a holy text. simply because deflation can be so bad that the index of average prices (the denominator) falls faster than the nominal GDP (the numerator), creating the passing appearance of positive “real income” growth when the recession is actually worsening.

Regardless of whether one accepts Syriza’s prognosis of the Euro Crisis—that the architecture of the Eurozone inevitably leads to debt-deflationary cycles in peripheral countries

like Greece—the possibility that it is correct is scary enough. The leaders of the Eurogroup are unelected technocrats who cannot be recalled or controlled by the European citizens they represent. If Syriza’s theory is correct and the Eurozone is slowly disintegrating due to its own design, there is nothing that Europeans can do to change its course because the technocratic rule of the Eurozone is accountable to no one. In the long run, constricting popular sovereignty can play into the hands of the rightwing demagogues it is meant to exclude.

Across Europe, far-right nationalist parties are on the rise. Even in the United States, with its institutional checks against mass mobilizations, Donald Trump is winning the Republican nomination with ease. If Hillary Clinton is his opponent, he will undoubtedly paint her as a corrupt politician who relies on procedural barriers and crony capitalism to retain power.

And this may be more effective than Democrats are expecting because it’s a valid point—not against Hillary Clinton in particular, but against the political establishment as a whole. The liberal fantasy of enlightened party elders stoically doing the difficult thing and preventing voters from nominating Trump only proves his point.

Historically, the institutional arrangements that are held in place by political charters have only been challenged through violent revolution. Since this would obviously be a disaster in the 21st century, the only alternative is to revitalize our representative democracies so that new solutions for the future can be publicly debated and implemented by dynamic political parties. Quoting James Madison about the dangers of “contagious passions” and reifying the Constitution will only tie our democracies further into knots. In order to creatively embrace the contradictions of liberal democracy in a changing world, we cannot limit our thinking to which interpretation of the Founders is most correct as though the Constitution were a holy text. This kind of nationalism has no place in the 21st century.

In the short term, limiting popular sovereignty serves the interests of the narrow class of people who benefit from widening inequality. In the long term, the only people who benefit are racists, bigots and demagogues.

SOURCES: [1] Peter Wehner, “The Man the Founders Feared,” The New York Times [2] James Madison, “James Madison to Unknown, Re Majority Governments, Dec. 1834,” [3] Dominic Alexander, “Magna Carta: A Tradition of Rebellion,” [4] Michael Thomas Clanchy, England and Its Rulers: 1066-1272: Foreign Lordship and National Identity, 3rd Edition [5] Constitution of the Fifth Republic, Article 89, France [6] Richard Kersley, Markus Stierli, “Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive,” [7] Yanis Varoufakis, The Global Minotaur: America, the True Origins of the Financial Crisis and the Future of the World Economy [8] Yanis Varoufakis, “Real vs Money Incomes – the One Thing We Need to Understand during Deflationary times (with an Illustration from Greece and Cyprus)” IMAGES: Via Wikicommon.

33

TECH

featured columns

Miranda is a Spring 2016 featured columnist.

Her column “The Middle East: Disrupted” discusses how a revolution in technology and entrepreneurship is empowering citizens to transform the region from the ground up, thereby disrupting the usual narrative of Middle East politics.

AND

ENTREPRENEURSHIP NEW AVENUES FOR FEMALE LEADERSHIP IN SAUDI ARABIA

Miranda Beggin, Finance and Political Science 2017

A

s falling oil prices continue to plague the Saudi Arabian economy, efforts to develop a system that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship are being put to the test.

As a result, women are taking household roles that are less traditional, starting businesses, and working in industries from which they were banned not long ago. Gender inequality in Saudi Arabia has long been an issue subject to global criticisms, but the reality of Saudi Arabia’s economy is forcing the role of women in the country to shift. Long-standing cultural power dynamics that have created this divide are being challenged, as Saudi Arabian women enter the workforce and obtain greater autonomy. As so many of Saudi Arabia’s cultural restrictions are rooted in long-standing power dynamics, we can’t help but ask ourselves, how are female entrepreneurs shifting this paradigm?

Empowering women through entrepreneurship and technology is increasing their financial independence and cultural autonomy, forcing a shift in the hierarchy of the Saudi Arabian household.

Due to legal and cultural restrictions, Saudi Arabia has historically had one of the lowest participation rates of women in the workforce. Despite these barriers, the gender divide within the Saudi Arabian workforce has decreased since 2010, with female participation increasing by 48%.[1] Despite this increase, in 2015, the participation rate was a mere 16 percent, despite Saudi Arabian women making up half of college graduates that year.

[2] Some employment restrictions have shifted in the past five years, now allowing women to have careers in fields they had previously been banned from, such as retail and hospitality.

In late 2013, the first female lawyers were certified to practice in the country.[3] Despite the legal lifting of such restrictions in the country, some restraints are still enforced, such as the system of guardianship. The formal name of this system is Wakeel, and it requires that male family members sign off on a woman’s decision to open a business or attend University outside the country. Other deeply rooted cultural restrictions have been more difficult to change, such as the limited interactions women may have with men outside of their families or the government’s ban on women driving.[4]

34

As Saudi Arabia works to diversify its economy, developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem has been central to growth.

Entrepreneurship is empowering the women of Saudi Arabia, allowing them to take on new leadership opportunities and create their own positions of decision-making power.

Businesswomen like Muna Abu Sulayman, for example, are using their influence to further empower women. As the founding Secretary General of the Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation, the not-for-profit arm of the HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Company, Muna Abu has invested in women through philanthropic efforts. She has identified the impact that female entrepreneurship has

Long-standing cultural power dynamics that have created this divide are being challenged, as Saudi Arabian women enter the workforce and obtain greater autonomy. on the country as well, stating, “When you change women’s conditions and empower them, you change the whole family.” Through a partnership with The Al Nahda Society, Muna Abu led the foundation’s efforts to train women to work in the retail sector. Muna Abu also spearheaded a national campaign for breast cancer awareness, which had not previously been spoken about publicly, despite the large number of Saudi Arabian women who are affected by it.[5] It is female leaders like Muna Abu who are already shifting the gender paradigm in Saudi Arabia. They are forging the path for young

Saudi Arabian women who are graduating college today. The job market has yet to adjust to this influx of highly-skilled college graduates, especially women, as many fields have historically been dominated by men.

As young Saudi Arabian women graduate with more advanced degrees than their male counterparts, entrepreneurship will allow them to create jobs that meet their standards and qualifications. They will become financially independent, thereby reshaping traditional Saudi Arabian relationships. For children growing up in households with strong male and female leaders, the potential for establishing new societal norms is tangible.

Not only have long-standing legal barriers like the guardianship requirement been significant obstacles to aspiring female entrepreneurs, but cultural and family dynamics have been preventative as well. Before 2001 it was required that all female-owned businesses had their finances managed by a man, a requirement known as mudeer.[6] Many female entrepreneurs are still being forced to appoint a male manager, even when the law explicitly states otherwise. Families have been led almost exclusively by male heads of households, and due to entrepreneurial limitations, women were largely dependent on the men of the home.

The Saudi Arabian government has worked to make improvements, such as the slow erosion of the guardianship requirement that began under King Abdullah in 2004. Enforcement of this, and other regulatory changes such as the removal of the mudeer requirement, has been inconsistent at best. Obstacles in business licensing regulations and procedures are one of the five key areas where government-led policy in Saudi Arabia has failed female entrepreneurs, according to the Executive Education and Leadership Development Group.[7] Despite these barriers, initiatives encouraging female entrepreneurship have begun to push the envelope on these restrictions. In Saudi Arabia, the social enterprise Potential is running a program called Hadafi that works to help Arab women achieve their entrepreneurial ambitions by accelerating their ideas through mentorship and encouragement. Initiatives like Hadafi give women access to networks of people who

will encourage them to take risks and start businesses.[8] Having a strong relationship with a mentor who will provide support and advice is beneficial for any entrepreneur, but for female entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia, it is crucial.

According to Areen Shahbari, the founder of Cactus, a female-focused entrepreneurship accelerator in MENA, “Women [entrepreneurs] don’t believe in themselves because others don’t believe in them.”[9] Organizations are working to connect aspiring entrepreneurs with mentors who will support their efforts and empower them to continue growing their businesses. When women can receive support from outside the household, it will reshape their view on what they can possibly achieve.[10] Female business owners are developing their own relationships that are not dependent on their husbands, largely because they are no longer reliant on the incomes of their male heads of households. Women like Nora Almesned, a Saudi Arabian entrepreneur, are being empowered by the independence they get from their businesses. She states, “My business added so much to me. It made me stronger and more independent.”[11] Despite financial barriers and long-standing biases towards female business managers, female entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia have used personal savings and family resources for business funding and

formation.

Empowering women in the country to start businesses, although incredibly important, is not the sole arbiter of this shifting dynamic.

Some of the other gender-biased barriers, such

Entrepreneurship is empowering the women of Saudi Arabia, allowing them to take on new leadership opportunities and create their own positions of decisionmaking power. as the female driving ban, are quickly being disrupted through other non-policy means, like the sharing economy.[12] The sharing

economy, or collaborative consumption, relies on collective ownership and the sharing, trading, and renting of products as opposed to individual ownership. Consider the role of Uber in a place where women are dependent on male drivers due to institutionalized sexism and a lack of public transit infrastructure.

With the introduction of Uber, and Careem, a MENA-based ride-sharing startup, women are able to have greater mobility and autonomy.[13] The growth of technology adoption has helped female entrepreneurs in other ways too, as they have increasingly been able to establish homebased businesses to meet the growing demands of the service sector in the country.[14] Although Uber is not closing the gender gap any time soon, it is a glimpse into the way that technology and the sharing economy are increasing the power of individuals previously disenfranchised. Initiatives to empower female entrepreneurs are effecting change in ways that we have yet to see. As women in Saudi Arabia develop greater autonomy and begin to shift the economic landscape of the country, the power of individual women will first shift household dynamics, and potentially result in policy change that will give women in Saudi Arabia even greater freedom.

SOURCES: [1] Jonathan Chew, “Women Are Taking Over Saudi Arabia’s Workforce” [2] Ibid. [3] Martha Neil, “Saudi Arabia Licenses Its First Women Lawyers,” [4] Mark Troemel and Patricia Strait, “Bedouin Rising: How Saudi Female Entrepreneurs are Leading Saudi Arabia into a Knowledge-Based Economy,” [5] Anil Bhoyrul, “Foundation For Change,” [6] Kelly Lavelle and Hessah Al Sheik, “Giving Voice To Women Entrepreneurs In Saudi Arabia,” [7] Ibid. [8] Tala El Issa, “From KSA To The Arab World: Hadafi Funds And Mentors Female Entrepreneurs,” [9] Areen Shahbari, “Assessing The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem In The MENA Region,” [10] “About Us,” Potential - Business Development [11] Jasmine Bager, “How Falling Oil Prices Helped Spark A Revolution Of Female “Accidental Entrepreneurs,” [12] Ahmed Al Majid, “Could A Sharing Economy Transform Saudi Arabia?” [13] Ahmed Omran, “Ride-Sharing App Uber Launches In Saudi Arabia,” [14] Mark Troemel and Patricia Strait, “Bedouin Rising: How Saudi Female Entrepreneurs are Leading Saudi Arabia into a Knowledge-Based Economy.” IMAGES: Via WikiCommon.

35

BE HEARD. 36