WUPR Issue 20.2: Cities

Washington University

political review 20.2 | March 2014 | wupr.org

C

carnaval ad

D

Editors’ Note Dear Reader, Editors-in-Chief: Moira Moynihan William Dobbs-Allsopp Executive Director: Nicolas Hinsch Staff Editors: Nahuel Fefer Aryeh Mellman Ben Lash Victoria Sgarro Features Editor: Billie Mandelbaum Grace Portelance Director of Design: Michelle Nahmad Asst. Director of Design: Alex Chiu Managing Copy Editor: Stephen Rubino Director of New Media: Raja Krishna Programming Director: Hannah Waldman

One of the most important domestic trends of the last century has been the steady urbanization of the U.S. population. In 1920, just one in two Americans lived in a city; today, it is nearly four in five. The cultural, social, and political repercussions of this redistribution are hard to overstate.

Urban centers concentrate a multitude of otherwise disparate identities and ideologies into a confined space, placing complex, and often competing, interest groups into regular contact. As a result, cities produce unique political phenomena.

We often understand urban politics to be a microcosm of the issues at play on the national stage, when in fact the problems our cities face are highly specific to local contexts. Consider St. Louis, where it often takes no more than crossing a street to go from one of the nation’s wealthiest neighborhoods to one of its poorest. This patchwork effect is a consequence of a set of historical factors that is particular to this city: housing discrimination policies, the ceding of power to local municipalities, and the decline of the manufacturing industry, to name a few. And yet, while the story may change from city to city, historical legacies shape political tensions in every urban space around the world.

Inside you will find a broad range of article topics, from drug policy and urban tree initiatives to gentrification and Philadelphia’s commuter system.

However, these only begin to address the complexity of urban politics. If in the course of reading this issue you find your curiosity piqued, or if you take issue with the arguments put forth, let us know. We would love to hear from you and would love even more for you to submit your own article!

Enjoy, Moira Moynihan Will Dobbs-Allsopp

Finance Director: Alex Bluestone Front Cover: Andrew Kay Theme Page: Michelle Nahmad Back Cover: Margaret Flatley

We accept submissions from any undergraduate: editor@wupr.org

1

Table of Contents National 4

The Modern Puppet State

interNational 14 Complicity in Genocide: Pascal

THEME: Cities 25

Simbikangwa in Paris

Ari Moses

Sonya Schoenberger 6

Beyond the Numbers: The Challenges of Low Income Students at Wealthy Schools Victoria Sgarro

Grace Feenstra 15 The Dismal Science

Nahuel Fefer 19 Why is Disenfranchisement Still

Acceptable?

9

The First Step Forward: College Athletes Attempt to Unionize Charlie Thau

Henry Kopesky 21 Laryngitis of a Generation

Alison Schreiber

10 A Call for Academic Freedom

Meytal Chernoff 11

24 Sentencing War: Disparities and

Why We Need the Trade Promotion Authority Now Jared Turkus

Unless otherwise noted all images are from MCT Campus

2

Suburban Policy in City Life: The Far Reaching Consequences of Housing Discrimination

Injustices in Cracking Down on Cocaine Hayley Levy

28

Gentrification and the Changing Face of the American Population Rahmi Elahjji

29 Urban Forestry: What’s That

About?

Emily Orr 30 Public Transportation as

Access to Employment Sean Janda

#WUCarnaval

#brazil2014 March 28 @ 7:30 and March 29 @ 3 and 7:30

3

The Modern Puppet State Ari Moses | Illustration by Andrew Catanese

I

t is early February and trash and scorched rubble are littered throughout the street. The clock strikes nine as the sun begins its journey across the sky, but Kiev’s once bustling city streets look as if they are from a ghost town, a mere remnant of their former selves.

Offices, schools, and all other manner of business have closed down for the foreseeable future. Rebellion and mass protests have engulfed the city, and taken the state with it.

The sovereign nation of Ukraine is only a few decades old, and foreign influence still looms over the struggling nation. Russia in particular has immense control over Ukraine’s foreign policy, and holds less forceful, yet still recognizable, sway over domestic Ukrainian policy.

Russian Influence After the formal fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, many of the former Soviet satellite states joined an organization championed by Russia called the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This organization aims to provide protection for all member nations as well as to prevent the sale and distribution of Soviet era resources and weaponry. In practice, however, Russia uses the CIS to ram a proRussian agenda down the throats of member nations, forcing its policies on weak nations that rely on Russia for financial support.

Over the last few years, the Ukrainian government has signaled a desire to pivot away from Russia, towards the European Union (EU).

This move would almost certainly diminish Russian political power, a fact that Putin’s government will not accept. They have leveraged the fact that Russia owns the largest percentage of Ukrainian sovereign

4

debt to split Ukraine from the EU. In December 2013, the Ukrainian and Russian governments signed a treaty that provided the struggling nation huge incentives to remain outside of the EU. Russia maintains a dominant position over regional trade, energy production, and transportation, which it uses to further its own political and economic agenda at the expense of surrounding nations.

Forced into economic dependency by subsidies, the CIS nations, especially Ukraine, are forced to enact domestic and foreign policy subject to the approval of Russia.

In effect, Russia controls the region’s energy sector and leverages this reality to influence the CIS nations’ domestic and foreign policy.

Using bailout funds and subsidies, the Russian Federation offers its neighbors loan rates the market can’t match in order to make these nations dependent on Russian support. This forces the CIS nations, especially Ukraine, to enact domestic and foreign policy subject to the approval of Russia. Nowhere is this more clear than the recent drama regarding Ukraine’s pivot towards the EU. Ukraine’s attempt to assert its independence from Russian influence was met by a series of incentives intended to bring the nation back into line. The Ukrainian

government acquiesced in December 2013, signing a treaty in which Russia offered trade agreements and economic stimulus packages that no other nation could offer. The unspoken subtext was what Russia was receiving in return: obedience.

Incentives The most important aspect of the 2013 treaty was a clause which allows Ukraine to pay Russia’s state owned enterprise, Gazprom, a price of $268 instead of $400 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas—a 33 percent discount. During the 2013 calendar year, Ukraine imported approximately 33 billion cubic meters of natural gas at a price of $352, resulting in a bill of $11.6 billion dollars, or 6.6 percent of the nation’s GDP. As Russia supplies more than half of Ukraine’s natural gas supply, (and Gazprom is responsible for most Russian production) this represents a massive incentive for the government of Ukraine to refuse to join the EU. Another tool the Russian government uses as leverage over Ukraine is its status as the largest investor in Ukrainian securities.

Russia has more than $30 billion invested in national securities and $15 billion reserved for the purchase of new debt. Of course, this debt support is conditional on the existence of a pro-Russian government in Kiev, and its removal would cripple Ukraine’s economy in the short term.

Sanctions When carrots fail, Russia turns to sticks to beat its neighbors into submission. Russia supplies 25 percent of the EU’s natural gas, and almost 80 percent of this natural gas flows through pipelines in Ukraine, which Russian gas companies pay tariffs to use. In the past, when Gazprom and the Ukrainian government have disagreed, the Russian oil giant has refused to utilize Ukrainian pipelines, denying the nation crucial tariff revenues. Instead, it has opted to take a loss and supplied its gas to Europe through less efficient methods.

Russia uses its trade with Ukraine in a similar fashion. Although Ukraine has diversified its imports and exports over the last few years to reduce its dependence on Russian trade, Ukraine’s largest trading partner remains, undoubtedly, the Russian Federation. The entirety of Europe, the second largest consumer of Ukrainian exports, purchases only 29 percent of Ukrainian exports; Russia is responsible for 40 percent. Similarly, 15 percent of Ukrainian imports arrive from Russia, the largest amount of any nation exporting goods to Ukraine.

Because Russia sustains a much larger economy, it can afford to sell its resources at a subsidized rate in order to keep the CIS countries in its sphere of political dominance.

Whenever the governments of Ukraine and Russia drift apart ideologically, Russia either slows trade with the nation or increases the prices on necessary exports to it, while refusing to spend more on Ukrainian products.

Since Russia is the single largest entity that trades with the former Soviet satellite state, any disruption in trade between Russia and

its influence to combat the growing power and reach of foreign energy companies investing in Kazakhstan. Through threats to increase pipeline access fees or by bribing powerful local business executives, often by placing them on the boards of prominent Russian energy businesses, Russia has both increased its own investment in the Kazakh energy sector and reduced the country’s attractiveness to foreign investors. This weakens the Kazakh economy in the long term and makes it more dependent on Russia. In

This unjust power grab by the Russian government has whipped the Ukranian into a frenzy of protest and unrest.

Ukraine cripples the Ukrainian economy; meanwhile, such interruptions barely register on the massive scale of the Russian economy.

These powerful incentives explain the Ukrainian government’s reluctance to turn away from Russia. Yet despite the short-term economic logic, the reversal of Ukraine’s pivot towards the EU remains a highly unpopular move and has resulted in months of protests, both in Kiev and across the country. Many in Ukraine believe that Russia deliberately keeps Ukraine on the economic equivalent of life support in order to ensure its subservience, whereas the EU would provide the nation with the proper investments to expand the Ukrainian economy, adding jobs and raising incomes across the country.

Gazprom and the CIS Nations Over the past decade, Gazprom, on behalf of the Russian government, has been purchasing large natural gas reserves and fields in CIS nations, most notably in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Such large energy sector purchases are possible because many CIS nations remain heavily indebted to Russia. Belarus was forced to sell a profitable national asset, the Beltransgraz pipeline, to Russia because the nation was unable to pay its loans back to Gazprom. Similarly, Kazakhstan and the other nations in the region are too poor to build their own pipeline networks and are wholly dependent on Russian pipelines to transport gas, oil, and other resources out of the country.

Russian activity in Kazakhstan provides a good example of how profoundly this influence can set a nation back. Over the past decade, the Russian government has been using

turn, this new reliance on favorable relations with Russia has forced Kazakhstan to sell its resources at artificially low prices to appease the Russian government, which decreases Kazakhstan’s chances of future autonomy and economic prosperity.

The Puppet State Ukraine may be legally independent, but it remains dependent to and subject to the power of the Russian Federation. Whereas it once was legally a territory possessed by the Tsardom of Russia, then the Russian Empire, and finally the USSR, today Russia seeks to dominate Ukraine through economic measures, under the guise of friendship and benefaction. A nation that must have its foreign policy approved by an economic benefactor, however, has lost its sovereignty. It is a nation subject to the whims of a more powerful regional player. As it stands today, the government of Ukraine is nothing more than a puppet of the Russian government, a mere façade to the global community.

This unjust power grab by the Russian government has whipped Ukrainian citizens into a frenzy of protest and unrest. The statement is clear: no longer will the Ukrainian masses tolerate Russian dominance over their foreign and domestic policy. Whether the dissenting Ukrainian people will be able to break their nation away from Russian influence, however, remains to be seen. They may have the passion, but as we have observed, Russia has the money.

Ari Moses is a freshman in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at arimoses@wustl.edu.

5

Beyond the Numbers: The Challenges of Low Income Students at Wealthy Schools Victoria Sgarro

N

egative $27. For the first time in his life, Daniel* came face to face with a bank statement of less than zero. He stared fiercely at the computer screen glowing in his lap, as if he could will the tiny black minus sign to disappear.

Although money has been a constant worry for Daniel during his four years studying communication design and marketing at Washington University in St. Louis, many of his peers cannot fathom the possibility of zeroing out a bank account.

Washington University has long been criticized for its lack of socioeconomic diversity, with many citing its need-conscious admissions policy as a barrier to low-income students. On July 30, the New York Times referenced Washington University as having fewer Pell Grant recipients than other colleges similar in resources and endowment size. Yet with 39.9 percent of full-time undergraduates receiving some kind of need-based financial aid averaging $31,295, not all Washington University students live without financial worry.

“When at the end of the day I think, ‘What am I really stressed out about in life, what really is going to matter?’ That’s the true monster under the bed,” Daniel said.

Researchers at Georgetown University found that only 14 percent of students at the most competitive schools come from the bottom half of the income bracket. Moreover, most high-achieving students in the lowest quarter of incomes do not apply to any selective universities, according to a 2013 Brookings Institute study.

However, the challenges for low-income students do not end after they overcome the odds to be admitted to a top-tier school. Often, first generation college students or students who are leaving home for the first time do not know what to expect once they arrive on campus. Upon being thrown into an unfamiliar culture and exposed to more wealth than ever before, adjusting to college life can be a challenge.

“Last year was really tough in terms of the culture shock,” said Sloane Wolter, a sophomore from O’Fallon, Ill. studying psychology and spanish. “There’s just so many things about the school that I felt like I didn’t really belong. People had assumptions about standards of living that didn’t apply to me. I did kind of feel like I had to hide certain things about my background.”

On a full need-based scholarship, Wolter struggled academically and socially as a freshman to find her footing at Washington University, but vowed that sophomore year would be different. She decided to become more involved in Cornerstone’s TRiO program, a Student Support Services Grant program funded by the U.S. Department of Education that targets first generation, low income, and disabled college students. After her acceptance into the TRiO Leadership Program, Wolter found a community among other TRiO students.

“By no means are TRiO students any different from other Wash.

U. students from an academic [ability] standpoint,” Ashley Gilkey, diversity in retention coordinator at Washington University, said.

TRiO students are different, Gilkey clarified, because of their extra financial burden, which can affect their academic performance.

TRiO was founded in the 1960s based on the understanding that lowincome students face specific economic, social, and cultural barriers to attaining undergraduate degrees that other students do not.

6

“I can fully concentrate on my studies and not worry about if I can pay my tuition or rent,” said Ben Lewis, a senior from Naperville, Ill. studying physics, acknowledging the difference in his experience as a high-income college student.

Other students are not always so lucky. Even with financial aid or scholarships entirely covering tuition and housing, low-income students’ funding can still fall short.

For Alexa†, a low-income junior from Texas, money plays a role in determining which opportunities she decides to take advantage of outside of the classroom at Washington University. Finances will influence her decision to apply for a volunteer trip abroad this summer, something which could affect her application to medical school. It also was a factor in her decision to join a sorority.

“Yeah, you have a meal plan, but do you have snacks in your room? Do you have the means to get home over break? That’s what comes into fully supporting a student,” Gilkey said.

The TRiO program tries to fill these financial gaps for students by subsidizing necessities not covered in traditional financial aid packages, such as lab fees, textbooks, and tickets to student performances for cultural enrichment.

However, for all the help TRiO provides to Washington University students, not all students who need TRiO’s services can receive them. At Washington University, 800 to 900 students qualify for TRiO, but only 200 of them can be selected for the program.

“That means there are about 600 to 700 students walking around this campus who don’t have the opportunity to get the support and services we can provide,” Gilkey said. “And what about those students who make one dollar over that mark? They have the same needs but they’re going unaddressed.”

As Daniel exasperatedly stared at his negative $27 balance, it was easy to wonder if he was one of the students Gilkey was referring to.

Because he is unable to qualify for a full scholarship, half of his tuition is paid in loans which he will have to pay back after graduation.

Daniel clicked through the Wells Fargo screens to find the last charge on his account. Thirty dollars at a Walmart in St. Paul, Minn.

His mother must have borrowed money from him again to pay for groceries, despite his warnings that he had already spent his student loan for the semester.

The charge drew his attention to all that he was sacrificing and risking by pouringmoney he does not yet have into his education.

Money that might otherwise be used to pay for food for his four siblings.

“I’m putting it all on the line basically,” Daniel said. “Because if I screw up, then I’m indebted to Wash. U. for the rest of my life.”

* Preferred not to give his surname. † Name has been changed for publication.

Victoria Sgarro is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at vrsgarro@wustl.edu.

get more involved in st. louis united way volunteer If you are looking to volunteer in the city, an easy way to get more information is to sign up on the United Way volunteer website! You can recieve alerts about upcoming events and filter opportunities based on your interests: http://getconnected.unitedwayoc.org There is even a feature, called Gen Next, specifically designed for young adults, so that you can get involved and meet other volunteers your age: http://www.stl.unitedway.org/get-involved/gennext/

st. louis serves St. Louis Serves is a campaign with the goal of recruiting 250,000 volunteers to log 1 million service hours in honor of the city’s 250th birthday. The site also features an event calendar listing concerts, fairs, trivia nights, charity runs, and more: http://www.stl250.org

what keeps st. louis from becoming a top tier city?

Interested in the future of St. Louis? Come to the talk “What Keeps St. Louis from Becoming a Top Tier City?”

March 20th, 5-6pm in DUC 234.

celebrating the 250th anniversary of st. louis The 250th anniversary celebrations will create a multitude of service opportunities, so keep an eye out and get involved!

Grace Portelance

7

Spend a summer in St. Louis! Explore local neighborhoods! Discuss social issues!

Receive $3500 to complete a summer internship at a non-profit or community-based organization!

Apply for the Gephardt Institute

Goldman Fellows Program Attend an information session: February 26, 5:30pm, DUC 340 March 18, 6:30pm, DUC 340 March 21,12:00pm, EADS 217

Applications Due April 2 www.gephardtinstitute.wustl.edu

8

The First Step Forward: College Athletes Attempt to Unionize Charlie Thau

O

n January 28th, Ramogi Huma filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of football players at Northwestern University in an attempt to create a union. This action, led by Wildcats quarterback Kain Colter, is both unprecedented and historic as college athletes are beginning a process that could shatter the NCAA’s current definition of student-athlete.

While the new College Athletes Players Association (CAPA) faces an uphill battle, it has the potential to fundamentally alter the power dynamic of college athletics.

The battle in court will center on one existential question: can college athletes be considered employees? The NCAA has vehemently denied any such assertions, contending that athletes should not receive payment besides their scholarships and maybe a small cost-of-living stipend because they are “amateurs.” While this may seem like a fair arrangement at first glance, in reality it is not. After delving deeper, it becomes frighteningly clear that the value of a scholarship is negligible in comparison to the profits universities and the NCAA reap from college athletics.

The NCAA produces about $11 billion in annual revenue from college sports, more than the estimated totals of both the NBA and the NHL. The vast majority of this comes from football and men’s basketball, each of which has incredibly lucrative television contracts with major networks such as ESPN and CBS. The prosperity isn’t only restricted to the NCAA and the media however. According to figures published

by Deadspin, in 27 states the highest paid public employee is a college football coach, and in 13 others, a college basketball coach holds that distinction. Nick Saban, the head football coach at the University of Alabama, will make over $7 million next year, or 72 times more than the governor of Alabama.

The wealth continues to spread, with university athletic directors being compensated at record salary levels as well.

These statistics stand in sharp contrast to data illustrating the injustice done to current and former players. It is estimated that 86 percent of college athletes live below the poverty line. Despite providing athletic scholarships, most schools do not cover any

out of pocket expenses for players. In fact, the NCAA can immediately suspend any players found to have been given any extra compensation, including gas or food money.

Kain Colter answers questions following the announcement that several Northwestern football players wish to join a labor union.

These players are clearly the core labor and marketing force behind an enormously profitable industry that has failed to compensate them fairly.

Perhaps the most egregious lack of compensation is basic insurance from the schools for injuries suffered on the playing field.

Many of these injuries are completely uninsured by the universities, despite the fact that each injury is suffered while competing for these schools. This is one of CAPA’s highest priorities, especially given the recent research linking concussions suffered in football to long-term brain damage.

Though a scholarship allows athletes an opportunity to receive a degree, competing in college athletics severely hinders that prospect. The average Division I college football player dedicates 43.3 hours per week to his sport, or 3.3 more hours than the typical American work week. Further, a rigorous practice and travel schedule routinely causes student-athletes to miss class.

The academic system is also astonishingly corrupt; indeed, some players are genuinely unable to do work at a university level. A recent CNN investigation found that many student-athletes on college football or men’s basketball teams could only read up to an 8th grade level; at UNC Chapel Hill, there were football players who could not even read. It is fundamentally unjust that many students are being quietly funneled through the university education system without any legitimate training for the world outside of athletics.

Further exacerbating the situation, players serve as enormous marketing tools for their universities. Success on the field sometimes correlates with improved application rates and caliber of admitted students.

For example, the year that Boston College’s Doug Flutie won the Heisman Trophy, the school’s undergraduate admissions rose by 25 points and its average SAT score rose by an astronomical 110 points. This is not restricted to one anecdote—many schools benefit tremendously from having fantastic athletics to bolster their academic reputations. While student-athletes are quite obviously irreplaceable marketing tools for their universities, they are not properly rewarded as such.

College athletes are clearly the core labor and marketing force behind an enormously profitable industry that has failed to compensate them fairly. Unionizing is not a perfect solution for the players, but it’s a great start. Eventually a more lucrative solution, such as pay-for-play or free market compensation for use of players’ likeness, would be more ideal. Since CAPA’s demands at the moment are very reasonable, however, they should be able to shift public opinion towards the players’ position. Gaining rights for college athletes will be a slow and laborious process, and the NCAA is sure to fire back. Nevertheless, this is an injustice that needs to be rectified. There is no doubt that at the moment unionizing is the right thing to do.

Charlie Thau is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cthau@wustl.edu.

9

A Call for Academic Freedom Meytal Chernoff

O

ver winter break the students of Washington University received an email from Chancellor Wrighton declaring our university’s refusal to participate in the American Studies Association’s (ASA) academic boycott of Israel. The ASA is one of many medium sized academic associations, but its actions are indicative of a larger trend. This January, the Modern Language Association’s (MLA) Delegate Assembly voted to send its own version of an academic boycott of Israel on to a general vote.

The MLA is a large organization devoted to the study and teaching of language, and while the decision to support a potential boycott should be taken seriously, it brings them into a strange political realm. The MLA’s Resolution 2014-1 passed in a vote of 60 to 53 and urges the State Department to “contest Israel’s denial of entry to the West Bank by US academics” and to support the boycott of Israel.

This two pronged approach would both prevent any contact between MLA members and Israeli universities and academics, while lobbying the United States government to institute a more general boycott of all Israeli goods and products. The rationale behind the boycott is to pressure Israel to stop making it difficult for visiting academics to travel to and lecture at Palestinian universities in the West Bank.

The MLA is a powerful academic institution with a membership of over 30,000. It represents both a potentially powerful lobbying body as well as a powerful influence within the American academic community.

In his email Chancellor Wrighton wrote that “a boycott of academic institutions directly violates academic freedom.” The term “academic freedom” is defined as the right of teachers and students to teach, express their ideas, and discuss knowledge without religious, political, or institutional restriction. When faced with this definition it is clear that the boycott of Israeli academic institutions violates this right to teach and discuss knowledge by placing a political and

10

institutional restriction on academia from a particular region. Telling students and researchers from American universities that they cannot communicate with colleagues at Hebrew University or other Israeli institutions infringes upon this right to discuss knowledge.

What makes this situation more unfortunate is the false foundation upon which the resolution and boycott are built – the belief that Israel limits foreign scholars’ access to Palestinian universities. Israel places no unique restrictions on academics working within Israel. Security concerns do, however, make travel problematic for all people. The security fence and checkpoints, for example, lengthen many individuals’ daily commute, but have also reduced terrorist attacks in Israel by over 80 percent since their creation. They may be inconvenient, but the right to live free from the threat of violence makes these security measures necessary. Thus, the MLA’s accusations, and the entire logic for its boycott, center on blaming Israeli academic institutions for a crime that they did not commit.

While the boycott is morally flawed, it also fails on a practical level. American institutions stand to lose a lot of crucial research ties should these movements gain power. Additionally, Israeli universities remain on the forefront of research in numerous fields, such as medicine, technology, nanoscience, and agriculture, to name just a few. To cut students off from this knowledge would be a grave scientific loss as well as a violation of academic freedom. By restricting access to Israeli universities, the MLA and ASA hurt the many Palestinian students who attend these universities. The boycott claims to fight for the rights of the Palestinian people, and yet their actions accomplish the opposite. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has spoken out against the boycott of Israel saying that “we have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.”

An integral part of academia at the university level is the ability to share ideas, debate different opinions, and hear sides of an argument that you may have never considered. As paragons of academia, one would hope that the MLA and ASA would see the beauty of open discussion and encourage it, rather than seek to silence voices from one particular country. Students should be able to look to their academic institutions to hear the many facets of a story, and to be able to engage in thoughtful debate. The university years should be spent in open discourse and honest discussion, and to have that opportunity removed threatens each student’s right to academic freedom and the acquisition of knowledge.

Meytal Chernoff is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at chernoff.meytal@wustl.edu.

Why We Need the Trade Promotion Authority Now Jared Turkus

T

he economy is finally recovering from the Great Recession. The deficit is falling at the fastest rate since WWII: it stands at $645 billion, down from $1.4 trillion in 2010. The unemployment rate was 10 percent in October 2009; as of December 2013 it has fallen to 6.7 percent. GDP grew 3.2 percent in Q4 2013 alone; in 2009, GDP contracted 2.8 percent. According to the Federal Reserve, all this has occurred while inflation remains under 2 percent. While these data do conceal long-term economic problems such as a shrinking workforce, large projected deficits beyond fiscal year 2017, and changed metrics used to calculate inflation, the data are generally indicative of recovery. However, in 2014, optimism in the rate of growth of the U.S. economy began waning. The stock market, which netted a 30 percent return in 2013 alone, began with a major selloff in the opening weeks of January due to overinflated prices that were not backed by sufficient earnings. The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index has already lost 1,000 points since the beginning of the year. The S&P 500 and NASDAQ, other major indexes reflective of investor confidence, have shown comparable losses. This selloff may be a correction in an overinflated stock market or the beginning of another recession. Regardless, President Obama has a responsibility to convince markets

that he is doing everything in his power to incentivize job insourcing and economic growth.

America Is Not Competitive In recent years, Congress has allowed the United States to lose a competitive edge to its foreign counterparts. The U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, which, as of 2014, is the highest in the world. In addition, corporations are also required to pay FICA tax, Medicare tax, state income tax, Old Age Survivor and Disability Tax, and property taxes. President Obama has proposed slashing the 35 percent rate to 28 percent and closing deductions that allow corporations to significantly reduce their tax bill. The President’s initiative is good; it would help mid-sized American companies compete in the global economy and create more jobs. Yes, companies like Apple and GE have been able to reduce their average tax bill to 12.6 percent, but firms most in need of additional capital suffer under effective rates near 50 percent. Most cannot afford to invest millions in overseas subsidiaries conveniently located in tax havens. The ones that do would be better off spending those resources on R&D and new hires to increase their profits. With a larger share of profits, these corpora-

11

tions would end up paying more in taxes and help reduce the deficit.

The current situation is a travesty because outsourcing will become increasingly significant with the rise of machine automated labor processing and cheaper Chinese engineering labor. Companies will not have any incentive to pay American engineers $160,000 annually when their counterparts will do the same work for a third of the price.

The most recent story signaling this trend is the failure of Motorola. In 2011, Google acquired the collapsing phone maker for $12.5 billion and installed an assembly plant in Texas for its MotoX smartphones. After the MotoX and MotoG smartphones failed to gain traction against Samsung, Google announced the sale of Motorola to Chinesebased Lenovo for $2.9 billion. The 2,500 jobs the Texas factory created will likely be outsourced to China, where labor and materials are a fraction of the American cost. The evidence for the Motorola trend is in plain sight; the labor force is decreasing in part because of outsourcing. And in spite of the findings of a study from the University of California, which concluded that 14 million American white-collar jobs are vulnerable to outsourcing, Congress has failed to pass laws incentivizing insourcing.

What Is The Trade Promotion Authority?

In March 2014, the clearest answer to the United States’s competitiveness problem is the renewal of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). If passed, it would allow the President greater flexibility in negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries. The TPA was active from 1975 until 1994. The bill then expired, but was restored in 2002.

In 2007, it expired again and now awaits a vote on renewal. Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently announced support for restoring this presidential power, which would allow the President to negotiate all agreements between the U.S. government and foreign entities. Under the TPA, once the President worked out the details of a trade agreement, he would send the proposal to Congress, which would either pass or reject the bill in its entirety. In other words, Congress would no longer have the power to veto sections or make amendments to trade agreements.

We Have Had More Trade Agreements With TPA The TPA renewal is a major opportunity

12

for the Obama Administration. It reassigns significant economic responsibility away from congressional politics and bickering.

This bill will force Congress to ignore minor disagreements over tariffs and incentives to support overall free trade that benefits the United States. GDP grows the more times money changes hands. Rewarding companies that invest in the United States should not be a partisan issue; it should be a national priority unimpeded by politicians seeking reelection without term limits. Conversely, the Constitution prohibits the President from running for re-election more than once. Instead of worrying about appeasing a diverse group of constituencies who may or may not support him in an election, the President would have the power and incentive to craft optimal trade agreements. During the peri-

Rewarding companies that invest in the United States should not be a partisan issue; it should be a national priority unimpeded by politicians seeking re-election without term limits. ods of the law’s enactment, Congress passed GATT, NAFTA, AUSFTA, Morocco FTA, CAFTA-DR, USBFTA, OFTA, CTPA, U.S.-Singapore FTA, and KORUS FTA, among many other agreements that helped foster mutually beneficial trade opportunities between the United States and foreign countries.

A protectionist faction of the Democratic Party opposes renewing the TPA out of fear that it could potentially jeopardize the U.S. minimum wage level, which they believe is already too low. This instinct is correct; we should not lower our wages to compete with China and other BRIC countries. But even if Congress renews the TPA, that won’t be an issue. The United States does not need to lower wages to maintain a competitive market.

Wages are only one factor among many that determine which countries get private sector investment. The United States has a unique balance of economic liberalism combined with basic government services that improve life quality for all. This balance makes it an attractive place to invest. China does not have the American network of paved roads,

broadband infrastructure, free speech, clean air, and sanitary water. These luxuries combined with an executive trade authority can give the United States a distinct advantage over BRIC countries in keeping jobs and capital stateside.

Trade Agreements Decrease Trade Barriers, Increasing GDP While laissez-faire trade is only one factor among many that contribute to economic prosperity, GDP growth was strongest during the years in which the TPA was enacted. The economy boomed from 1980-1987, 19912001 and from 2001 to 2006. With fewer import taxes, companies incentivize consumers to buy their product by passing tax savings onto the consumer. If people can buy more goods and services with less money, the volume of transactions will increase and boost GDP. Consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend on other goods or invest in securities that generate returns. Both options further increase the frequency of economic transactions. A business’s survival hinges upon positive, growing cash flows, which can only happen with an increase in the volume of transactions. Failure to do so will cause its shareholders to transfer their investments to more profitable ventures. To encourage that necessary volume, corporations systematically lower their product prices and introduce new products to bait consumer activity. Governments should learn from the most successful corporations and realize that private sector success in their environment is more likely with fewer taxes.

President Obama has repeatedly emphasized that he needs the powers within the TPA to negotiate the Transpacific Partnership and other upcoming trade agreements.

If other governments keep lowering their corporate tax rates and offering other incentives for firms to invest in their countries, the United States will not benefit as much from these agreements; it will fall behind and more jobs will be outsourced. While the TPA is only one of many changes that can further promote free trade, it is a step in the right direction to encourage continued economic momentum.

Jared Turkus is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jturkus@wustl.edu.

Your Ideas Here WUPR is always accepting submissions from Washington University undergraduates.

Send your ideas to editor@wupr.org

13

Complicity in Genocide: Pascal Simbikangwa in Paris Sonya Schoenberger

Rwandan President Paul Kagame [above] believes that France bears partial culpability for the genocide in 1994.

I

n a 100-day period between April and mid-July 1994, members Rwanda’s Hutu ethnic majority slaughtered nearly a million Tutsi and moderate Hutu with clubs and machetes. Twenty years later, one of the alleged orchestrators of the genocide is on trial in Paris.

Pascal Simikangwa, former intelligence chief of the Rwandan National Forces, faces charges of “complicity in genocide” and “complicity in crimes against humanity” for his role in arming and directing Hutu extremists. Under principles of Universal Jurisdiction—the right of any state to prosecute crimes against humanity in their national courts—France will review Simikangwa’s case over a six-week trial. Simikangwa could face up to life in prison, and his sentence, which will be decided just before the bidecennial anniversary of the killings, will carry powerful symbolic value. But France’s role in prosecuting Rwandans carries a certain irony: Paris armed and supported the authoritarian Hutu regime in the days leading up to the genocide.

In October 1990, French President Francois Mitterrand responded to Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s request for assistance in repelling the insurgent activities of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) by sending in two companies tasked with arming and training the Hutu Rwandan Armed Forces. Acting under the rhetorical auspices of aiding an ally in self-defense, France thus began to fortify the monoethnic Hutu military against Tutsi exiles attempting to regain entry and influence by military force. Over the next four years, France remained actively involved in the civil conflict, stepping up support for the Hutu Rwandan Armed Forces (RAF) even amidst rising, and increasingly violent, ethnic tensions. France continued this support despite the issuance of mandatory identity cards with ethnic labels, which proved instrumental to the efficient implementation of Hutu extremists’ extermination agenda.

French troops were thus already on Rwandan soil when the killings commenced, as was a small UN peacekeeping force in place to enforce the Arusha peace accords between the Hutu RAF and Tutsi RPF. But when mass murder began to unfold as reprisal for the assassination of Hutu president Habyarimana—now believed to have been orchestrated by Hutu extremists in order to catalyze the genocide— France and the international community did little to protect civilians.

While French forces evacuated western citizens and gave asylum to dignitaries of the Habyarimana Hutu regime, they turned away Tutsi employees of the embassy and French cultural center, most of whom

14

were subsequently murdered. In an emotional testimony before a 2008 inquiry into France’s role in the genocide, General Christian Quesnot estimated that the French and UN troops in Rwanda in April 1994 could have stopped the killings if they had worked in concert.

But while French and UN forces eventually provided a degree of protection to Tutsis desperate for refuge, neither attempted to counter or disarm Hutus bent on mass murder. In fact, on April 21, two weeks into the killings, the United Nations Security Council voted to reduce UN peacekeeping forces from 2,539 to 270 troops after the massacre of 12 Belgian soldiers.

When France finally sent humanitarian forces in late June, two weeks after the United Nations officially recognized “acts of genocide” and after hundreds of thousands had already been killed, Hutu crowds cheered what they perceived to be the arrival of an ally in the extermination of Tutsi civilians. And while these forces did take a more active role in protecting threatened civilians, they did not take a hardline stance against mobilized Hutu forces and failed to systemati-

France’s role in prosecuting Rwandans carries a certain irony: Paris armed and supported the authoritarian Hutu regime in the days leading up to the genocide. cally disarm those who entered the French zone of control.

France is not alone amongst Western powers implicated in the violence. Belgium, Rwanda’s former colonizer, institutionalized racial divisions by favoring Tutsis as the superior indigenous people, engendering the animosity that would manifest itself in waves of violent reprisals. While Belgian forces played an important role in post-Arusha peacekeeping, Brussels terminated its commitment after sustaining casualties. The United States, hesitant to deploy forces, reneged on agreements to lend material support to the UN mission, and actively supported the diminution of international peacekeeping forces during the genocide. Every member of the UN Security Council bears a degree of responsibility for approving the removal of UN peacekeeping forces when they were most critically needed.

It is important to bring the perpetrators of genocide to trial in order to assert that the international community will not let individuals who orchestrated the mass murder of hundreds of thousands live freely and unpunished in exile. But individuals do not perpetrate genocide—armed and mobilized groups of citizens do. And they do not do so in a geopolitical vacuum.

As the international community prepares to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, it is important to not only vilify those who played key political roles in genocide, but to reflect upon the complicity of western powers in codifying ethnic divisions, supervising the militarization of authoritarian regimes, and failing to recognize and respond to ensuing violence.

Sonya Schoenberger is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at saschoenberger@wustl.edu.

The Dismal Science Nahuel Fefer | Illustration by Simin lim ture consumption are difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Models often include unobserved variables, and though there is little doubt that these variables belong in our economic models and can be debated theoretically, they cannot be tested empirically without making questionable assumptions.

There is certainly hope for the science of economics in the long term - physicists run into the limits of human measurement abilities regularly and have been pushing the boundaries of their science for decades. In the short term, however, economists have no way to resolve subjective differences definitively. In the meantime, just as engineers step away from questions of bosons and neutrinos, policy makers should not concern themselves with grand macroeconomic theories. Instead they should use less ambitious, falsifiable models based on realistic assumptions.

Unstable Models

I

n 1931, John Maynard Keynes observed that, “If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid.” If anything, however, the public’s regard for economics has fallen since the days of Keynes, and economists have no one to blame but themselves.

Unrealistic Models Most economists are theorists. They use models predicated on assumptions and conditions that are difficult, if not impossible, to meet in the real world. This isn’t inherently bad, but just as most people wouldn’t trust a physicist to build a bridge, the American people don’t trust economists to steer the economy. Instead, bridges are built by architects and engineers who receive a specialized, largely separate education. Today’s economic policy makers, however, began as theorists, and this lack of specialization has conflated the worlds of economic theory and economic policy. Policy is too often based on unrealistic, theoretical models that simply do not hold up in the real world.

Economists get so caught up in the logic and beauty of their models that they forget that they are seeing only a simplified picture of what is happening. Most models, for example, rely on the assumptions that agents are omniscient and rational, ideals that do not hold at all in the real world. Other assumptions, such as the presence of perfect competition, are very rarely observed. And thus these theoretically sound models often fail the most basic test: they neither accurately reflect our reality nor accurately predict our future.

Unfalsifiable Models To make matters worse, economists are bitterly divided regarding which of the Neo Keynesian, New Keynesian (yes, they are different), and Real Business Cycle schools of macroeconomic thought (amongst others) provides the most useful theoretical framework.

While honest disagreement is not inherently bad, its persistence is not encouraging, as it indicates the existence of disagreements that may be impossible to resolve.

Part of the problem comes down to practical limitations – key factors like risk aversion or how much value individuals place on fu-

That economists disagree shouldn’t come as any surprise, but what is worrying is how profoundly even slight changes within the same broad model can change policy prescriptions. Two papers authored by Steve Williamson, an economist here at Washington University, provide a good example. The papers tackle the same issue of quantitative easing with slightly different New Monetarist models.

The results were striking: while the first concluded that quantitative easing was inflationary, and recommended reducing it, the other found that it was deflationary, and recommended ramping it up.

What was the theoretical change responsible for the profoundly altered policy prescription? The models that central bankers within the model were assumed to be using. Now, tinkering with models is

When people see flip flopping economists, models that make little intuitive sense, and multiple economists each claiming the corner on economic truth, they either side with the argument closest to their moral intuition, or conclude that economics has little to offer. all well and good for theorists, and an important part of the scientific process, but it is worrying that some current policy is based on similarly fragile models. It was this same frustration with ever changing economic predictions that caused President Truman to famously proclaim, “Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, ‘On the one hand… on the other…’” While this may be unavoidable, perhaps policymakers should focus on tackling simpler problems and providing concrete solutions.

Consequences When people see flip flopping economists, models that make little intuitive sense, and multiple economists each claiming the corner

15

A look at the worst city mayo Billie Mandelbaum & Grace Portelance

william hale thompson

marion barry

City: Chicago Term Years: 1915 – 1923 and 1927 – 1931

City: Washington D.C. Term Years: 1979 – 1991 and 1995 – 1999

Thompson is regarded as one of the most corrupt mayors in American

After a successful first term in which he enacted various social welfare

history, which is unsurprising considering he hails from one of the most

reform measures, Barry became the focus of rumors involving visits to

corrupt states. After winning his first mayoral election, “Big Bill” began

strip clubs and cocaine abuse. When asked about his habits, Barry in true

to charge city drivers and inspectors for their services with the hope

bad-boy fashion said, “First it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And

he could later finance his own presidential campaign. Beyond his own

second, what can I say? I’m a night owl.” The rumors turned into reality

fraudulent behavior, Thompson received significant financial support from

in 1990, when he was arrested after being caught on tape smoking crack

Al Capone—who needs the Koch Brothers when America’s greatest crime

cocaine. His arrest, and subsequent six-month imprisonment, however,

boss has your back? Moreover, rather than solve Chicago’s urban problems,

was just a blip in his political career. In 1992, he successfully won a seat on

Thompson fixated on his hatred for the British. Once Thompson went

the council for the city’s Ward 8 with the slogan: “He may not be perfect,

so far as to say that if he ever met King George V, he would “punch him

but he’s perfect for D.C.” In 1994, he once again was elected mayor. Now

in the nose.”

serving as a councilman, he recently came under fire for saying that Asian Americans needed to stop opening “dirty shops.” Barry said it himself—he’s not perfect.

16

ors of north america

bob filner

rob ford

City: San Diego Term Years: 2012 – 2013

City: Toronto Term Years: 2010 – Present

In October, the former mayor was sentenced to three months in home

The Marion Barry of Canada, Rob Ford rose to infamy in November 2013

confinement after being convicted of forcibly kissing or grabbing three

when he admitted to smoking crack cocaine. “Yes, I have smoked crack

women at fundraising events or City Hall meetings. Over 12 other women

cocaine. But do I? Am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably in one

also claimed to be sexually harassed by the 71-year-old mayor with

of my drunken stupors, probably approximately about a year ago.” How

an incredibly creepy smile (think the Joker meets botoxed grandpa).

admirable for a politician to be so candid. In addition to the alleged cocaine

One woman accused Filner of ordering her to “get naked” and later asking,

use, Ford has been accused of abusing OxyContin and propositioning

“Wouldn’t it be great if we consummated the marriage?” In the words

staffers with sex. In the midst of these scandals, a video of Ford surfaced

of America’s favorite “Anchorman” Ron Burgandy, “You stay classy,

that showed him pushing over a councilwoman during a hearing to consider

San Diego.”

his removal from office. Who said Canadians are polite?

17

on economic truth, they either side with the argument closest to their ideological leanings or conclude that economics has little to offer. Unfortunately, as I’ve alluded to above, they may have a point. The theoretical foundations for policy making are often either counterproductive or redundant.

It should be clear by this point that models that assume perfect markets are unrealistic and deeply counterproductive, as they prove irrelevant to most economic policy by definition. Even the most realistic model, however, remains redundant so long as it is unfalsifiable and there exists an equally valid model that produces contradictory policy recommendations. The existence of multiple theoretically defensible models results in early self selection amongst economists – those with liberal inclinations learn more and more about the models with more progressive implications, those with conservative tendencies learn more and more about models with conservative implications. This means that, although we may be getting better and better at defending them, most policies remains fundamentally subjective. The justifications economics provides us are no more falsifiable than our political beliefs. They are comforting but ultimately redundant.

Stagnating Wages Real average compensation growth (wages + benefits) has trailed average productivity growth in the United States since the early 1980s. This is worrying because, given perfect markets, a worker’s compensation should equal the marginal output that the worker produces. The decoupling of compensation and productivity growth indicates that the U.S. labor market is hindered by market failure and inefficiency.

Many suggest that inequality is increasing, a fear validated by the U.S. Gini coefficient, which hit .477 in 2012, its highest value since the Great Depression. Symptoms of stagnating compensation growth and rising inequality include depressed demand and

18

Industry Specific Minimum Wages The disagreement over the existence of market failure is certainly a superficial impasse, but, since both parties agree that government action is called for if a market failure exists, it is easily resolved. Unlike the subjective value of a model, market failure is a verifiable fact, and one that economists have good reason to disagree on given that in the United States there are multiple labor markets, some of which are competitive while others are monopsonistic.

Both sides need to stop cherry picking the data to prove their ideological point.

Embracing a more nuanced reality allows us to embrace more nuanced policy, such as industry and region specific minimum wage laws. An approach pioneered by Germany upon the integration of East Germany, this strategy acknowledges that productivity varies by industry and geographic region, but shouldn’t fall below the competitive market level in any case.

Such a policy would avoid both the pitfalls of failing to raise the minimum wage (leaving inefficient labor markets broken) and raising the minimum wage across the board (introducing inefficiency to existing competitive markets), and would magnify the benefits by reducing market failure at all income levels. While making such a policy a reality in the United States would be politically difficult, I find the existence of an apolitical policy that, by sheer economic logic, increases efficiency across the board comforting.

If labor markets are suffering from market failure, raising the minimum wage would increase efficiency and, paradoxically, employment.

Market Failures While economic theorists should continue pushing the limits of our knowledge, and Professor Williamson should continue his exploration of the impact of quantitative easing on interest rates within New Monetarist models, policy makers should take action with respect to the topics that almost all economists can agree on. Market failures are one such area.

It is no exaggeration to say that all economists agree that perfect markets are the very model of economic health. Markets in which consumers and producers have equal price setting power are omniscient, rational, don’t produce positive or negative externalities, and have well defined and protected property rights are not to be altered. The presence of market failures, however, implies the possibility for efficiency gain if the cost of minimizing the failure through government action is less than the potential benefit.

Where market failures exist, we can use both theoretical refinement and quantitative research to craft effective policy and finally talk dentistry, or, for the sake of this metaphor, medicine. Unfortunately, as a quick scan of the U.S. economy indicates, the existence of significant market failures is not up for debate.

Given these assumptions, many advocate for a minimum wage to place some constraints on negotiation. They argue that if labor markets are suffering from market failure, raising the minimum wage would increase efficiency and, paradoxically, employment.

Unsurprisingly, conservative economists disagree. They argue that labor markets are currently operating efficiently, and that a minimum wage represents a tax on the very companies hiring low skilled workers. They expect that minimum wage raises would produce job loss and inefficiency. Some economists, like Gregory Mankiw, who acknowledge inequality as a problem, propose earned income tax credits as a solution.

anemic growth, as well as reduced socioeconomic mobility.

Bargaining Power Here we arrive at some partisan disagreements, but they are not as fundamental as they first appear. Liberal economists such as Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein argue that compensation has been decoupled from productivity as a result of workers’ loss of bargaining power. They cite three trends: deregulation, which has reduced the costs companies face when lowering wages or firing workers, making threats of both more credible and strengthening their negotiating hand; reduced benefits, which have raised the costs of unemployment, effectively disincentivizing workers from risking unemployment by striking or employing other tough negotiation tactics; and globalization, which has given businesses cheap alternatives to U.S. workers, forcing many employees to either accept wage stagnation or lose their jobs.

These economists go on to argue that this is, in effect, a loss of wage setting power, and that labor markets – particularly those populated by replaceable, low skilled workers with minimal negotiating power – are suffering from market failure (monopsony).

Nahuel Fefer is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at nahuelfefer@wustl.edu.

Why is Disenfranchisement Still Acceptable?

Henry Kopesky | Illustration by Sophia Keskey

I

sm. That is how we define prejudice and discrimination today, by identifying the lines along which they occur. Racism, sexism, nationalism, classism; all are abhorrently common in the United States today. At the same time, however, each is largely frowned upon, even if it still persists subconsciously. Although the average American laughs at a sexist joke or a racist comedy sketch, one has to search the very fringe of political society before he or she can find someone who honestly believes in the disenfranchisement of a certain ethnic group or gender.

The shocking reality is that there is actually a group of millions of Americans (nearly seven percent of US citizens, in fact) who are legally barred from voting. How can this still be true? How can such an illiberal, prejudiced reality persist in a nation with such a progressive pedigree? The days of slavery were over generations ago. Women have been allowed to vote for nearly a century. Even some of the most subversive anti-voting measures have been outlawed for 50 years.

The political and economic philosophy of the United States is built primarily on the foundations laid hundreds of years ago by Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Montesquieu. Our government rules us only with our consent, and is responsible to the people. The definition of the people, though, has clearly changed since the Enlightenment. Then, the “people� were

the landed, Anglo-Saxon elite. Today, though, the people have every color, creed, gender, orientation, and income, and each is treated equally on Election Day. Everybody who comes to the polls is entitled to one vote.

Another term for the central idea that the government only rules by the consent of the governed is the theory of the social contract, so called for its premise that, for a state to arise, all of its constituents must agree to surrender some degree of their natural freedom to the government. In doing so, those citizens agree to abide by commonly-created laws and leave disagreements to be arbitrated by the government. In a perfectly democratic and liberal society, therefore, everybody who is subject to the laws has a hand in making them. The opposite is also true, that everybody who is allowed a hand in making the laws must obey them. This is the philosophical bedrock on which our Constitution and other frameworks for making collective decisions are based; applied judiciously and fairly, these principles have served the United States well in its two centuries of existence. That is, except for the years before 1865, when slavery was outlawed, not to mention the years before 1920 when women were given the vote, to say nothing of the nearly 200 years that came and went before the passage of the 26th amendment, which granted 18 year-olds the right to vote. Yet, at all these times, Americans were still reminded

19

of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not unprecedented, then, for Americans to be told their country is free when that freedom only applies to some.

“Old enough to fight, old enough to vote!” was the slogan that pushed the 26th amendment through Congress. The most heated debate over lowering the voting age occurred during the Vietnam War, one of the most controversial conflicts in American history. Why, asked protestors and activists, could an 18-year-old kid be forced to fight, kill, and die for a leader he could not help elect or depose? Tens of thousands of young adults were killed or wounded in Vietnam, and not one of them assented, in the language of the Declaration of Independence, to being bound by the draft. Fortunately, reason won the day, and all adults were given the right to vote in 1971.

The problem of voting rights, however, has not yet been solved. Let’s revisit the phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In the words of the Declaration, governments are created among men by men. Their purpose is to serve the people, not to rule them.

Every person who is expected to obey the law must only fulfil that expectation because they agreed to by participating in democracy.

As I said before, there is a group that sits on the outskirts, or, perhaps more appropriately, in the undercarriage of American democracy. That group is youth. Youth in this country cannot vote. They cannot run for office. In other words, they are not granted the same political rights as the vast majority of Americans. At the same time, however, Americans below the age of 18 are expected to obey the edicts of a government in which they are not included. In fact, many states, as well as the federal government, routinely put minors on trial as if they were adults, flouting the spirit of the social contract as if it were not one of the most central tenets of this country.

The clear counterargument to lowering the voting age is that those below the age of 18 are not able to comprehend politics on the level of adults, an argument that does indeed hold water. It is obvious that people’s brains develop over time, which means that intellect exists on a gradient from birth to adult-

20

hood. Further, no two people develop at the same pace. Therefore, there is no real way to establish a sensible voting age that does not do some people a disservice. This commonsense realization does not resolve our primary question, however: if 18 is not an appropriate minimum voting age, then what is?

One of the most puzzling aspects of society is age restrictions. It seems as if youth are granted rights in a random order, at completely arbitrary ages. Take driving, for instance. Some states allow teens as young as 14 the right to drive on their own to and from school; these youth, as young as freshmen

The shocking reality is that there is actually a group of millions of Americans (nearly seven percent of U.S. citizens, in fact) who are legally barred from voting. How can this still be true? in high school, can pilot a three-ton truck at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour, alone.

Even opponents of the graduated driving laws that allow this are generally in favor of letting teenagers drive at 16. This highlights a peculiar dilemma, though: if a person can drive a car, why can they not vote? Surely, a fully-loaded truck and trailer is more dangerous than a single vote.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy between voting and driving ages lies in an “-ism” that did not make the list at the beginning of this article. After racism, sexism, and the others comes ageism, a form of prejudice so pervasive that it is not even widely recognized as being problematic, let alone the ridicule of equality that it is. Socially ingrained ageism is what led Jon Stewart to joke to Malala Yousafzai, an accomplished Pakistani activist, about adopting her; ageism is what leads to publicly-enforced curfews and bans on selling young people toilet paper or eggs, for fear of vandalism. Paternalism, beyond what is appropriate within a family or guardianship, is synonymous with marginalization.

Although there is a clear place for raising children and helping them develop, that role too often seeps into the right of young adults

to develop on their own, to have their own responsibilities, and to be taken seriously for the things of which they are capable.

Putting aside ageist preconceptions of what youth ought to be allowed to do, we realize that there is no reason that young people should be able to drive before they can vote.

While the latter is a vital part of determining one’s own future and is both a right and a responsibility, the former is a dangerous activity that results in thousands of deaths each year. There are two obvious solutions to this problem, both of which involve synchronizing the age of adulthood. The first solution is to elevate the driving age to 18. While this may seem like the common-sense approach to the issue (as it would likely cut down on teen driving fatalities), the logistics of a significant change to driving laws would be complex and difficult. The economic consequences, too, would be dramatic: how could the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of working teens go to work? Local governments would be adversely affected as well, as they would have to step in and guarantee transportation to and from school for millions of young adults who had been able to transport themselves before.

Creating a single age of adulthood at 16, though controversial, has none of these problems. Not only does it leave the states’ drivers’ licensure programs and the complex economics of age rights untouched, it fits with the political foundation of the United States. To prohibit the prosecution as an adult of any individual below the age of 16, while simultaneously giving all those above 16 their full adult rights, eliminates the hypocrisy inherent in today’s system of graduated rights, or rights that are granted as time passes. As long as different standards of adulthood persist, ageism will continue to mar American society and prevent the next great step in progressive reform, and why?

In a liberal democracy, everybody’s voice is equal, or so they say.

Henry Kopesky is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at hrkopesky@wustl.edu.

Laryngitis of a Generation Alison Schreiber

People protest during oral arguments in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., October 8, 2013.

The case tests the Constitutional limits of campaign finance laws involving contributions to candidates and political parties and follows the 2010 controversial Citizens United decision.

F

our years ago the Supreme Court of the United States of America made a monumental and infamous decision. This verdict would disregard 100 years of precedent and would lead to an exceptionally expensive election. Overturning Austin and McConnell while affirming Buckley and Bellotti, this decision relied heavily upon the majority’s opinion in the latter cases and the minorities’ in the former. The result? The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v.

FEC that limiting independent expenditures by corporations on the basis of it being “electioneering communication” is unconstitutional.

The full implications of this court case are still unknown. As of now, we know that the 2012 election cycle was the most expensive American election yet. In the Missouri Senate election alone, the amount of money contributed to campaigns by Political Action Committees, the group of donors most heavily affected by Citizens United, to the incumbent Claire McCaskill nearly tripled. While these concrete facts are alarming enough, it is the theoretical implications of this court case that are even more frightening.

The belief that corporations and “natural persons” should be subjected to identical treatment under the Bill of Rights is inherently problematic. It may be true that corporations are composed of individual human beings who have a need to maintain their own personal rights, but the conclusion that we must then afford the corporation as a whole those civil liberties causes a cacophony of issues. Most saliently, corporations are not subjected to the same punitive charges as individual citizens. Whereas Martha Stewart served five months in a federal correctional facility for insider trading, those who were responsible for the economic collapse of Wall Street and ultimately the Great Recession faced no criminal charges. The charges that would normally accompany the gross negligence practiced by the executives of these banks were precluded by the fact that it was the banks, i.e. corporations, who were at fault. The true perpetrators were ultimately protected by the face of their business. While the fact that corporations do not face the same punishment for crimes is unjust, the moral code by which corporations operate makes this reality wholly

21

problematic.

Towards the end of last December, a post on “Overheard at WashU” garnered an unparalleled amount of attention: 400-plus comments in response to the “B-School, PreSchool” debate. Although the majority of these comments centered on the competing beliefs of communism and capitalism, there was one central theme that much of the argument grew from: corporate ethics are entirely distinct from the ethics we pride ourselves on, and what is considered the morally right thing to do for a business would be considered morally inexcusable to most Americans.

In particular, business ethics conflates practices that do not maximize profits with thievery—for to not maximize your profits is to have stolen from your shareholders. In this sense, every business decision must focus on generating the greatest revenue, a practice that will often conflict with the wellbeing of the people and society in general (e.g. increased output from coal mines may increase profits, but also cause health issues). From a political standpoint, when corporations have a strong influence on elections our political system is influenced by an entirely new set of ethics that does not have the typical human conscience.

Additionally, corporations can negatively affect elections in a very tangible way.

In being partially responsible for an elected official’s success, corporations can compel politicians to implement favorable polices for that corporation. However, it should also be noted that such expenditures from the general treasury of a corporation do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the shareholders or the beliefs of the members of the corporation. Such misrepresentation of those in association with a corporation is most evident here at Washington University in St. Louis.

While Todd Akin was highly criticized by the student body for his belief that the female body has “natural defenses” against “legitimate rape”. Washington University – which usually maintains a fairly progressive social agenda, as evidenced by current initiatives like the Mosaic Project – nevertheless donated $23,200 to the controversial candidate.

In the same way that conflating corporations and “natural persons” is problematic, so too is equating money with speech—a concept that was introduced and affirmed during the court case Buckley v. Valeo. While money can show support for a certain candidate, belief, or coffee vendor, money is nevertheless just property. Forged by the government and institutionalized by society, this currency is not an inherent, inalienable right; it is earned

22

slowly through hard work. It is a means by which we can voice our opinion more audibly, but it can never replace our voice itself.

Although not all of our voices project as well, we all nevertheless have an equal right to that voice. And it is this detail that is so integral to understanding why we cannot treat money as speech.

By the very nature of capitalism, money is distributed unequally among the population.

Freedom of speech is not. Each individual is protected equally, a fact firmly established by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, if speech is to include money, then certain individuals—most obviously, the rich—are protected more by the First Amendment. This

In an age when the moderate voice is already being underappreciated and suppressed by zealous extremism, a decreased voter turnout is most likely to be seen in this population—a fact that can only serve to further polarize the American political system. reality causes the further stratification of our socioeconomic system. In this regard, equating money with speech in a capitalist society not only violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but also deepens the chasm between the rich and the poor in America. While accepting economic inequality is inevitable in a capitalist society, accepting political inequality is antithetical to our democracy.

These two very real problems of affording corporations and natural persons, as well as money and speech, the same protections of the Bill of Rights cannot be understated.

Since Citizens United, we have seen an outpouring of money by corporations in our elections. In fact, during the 2012 election cycle, the top 32 donors for the entire elec-

tion were responsible for donating as much as the sum donated by all other 3.7 million Americans. Not only is such a statistic problematic in and of itself, it is also essential to note that these independent expenditures used for “electioneering communication” are often done in the form of negative advertising. Such a practice not only allows politicians to no longer dirty their hands, but also discourages voter turnout, as negative advertising is highly negatively correlated with voter participation. In an age when the moderate voice is already being underappreciated and suppressed by zealous extremism, the negative advertising funded anonymously by corporations will only serve to further polarize the American political system.

Although this situation is seemingly bleak, there is hope. As a people, we have the ability to elect officials to Congress who can change the current reality of our campaign finance system. Admittedly, the fact that the Supreme Court protects current policies that maintain the status quo confounds the typical pathways used by politicians to create change. However, it cannot be ignored, nor should it, that there are ways to subvert these misguided efforts of the Court. In particular, a constitutional amendment is being proposed as a way to clarify the distinction between corporations and natural persons, as well as money and speech. With 500 cities and 16 states in support of such an amendment, we are well on our way to rectifying the mistakes of the Court. As students of Washington University, we too have the ability to appeal to any level of government we see fit. We too have a voice in this political process. We have a right to this voice and it is our duty to use it for the betterment of our community and for the betterment of this country.

Alison Schreiber is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at alisonmschreiber@wustl.edu.

Cities

23

Sentencing War: Disparities and Injustices in Cracking Down on Cocaine Hayley Levy | Illustration by Esther Hamburger

T

he United States, with only 5 percent of the world’s population, has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Presently, individuals in the United States are incarcerated at a rate of 748 inmates per 100,000 people. The country with the closest rate is Russia, with a rate of 600 incarcerated per 100,000 residents.

Communist China, the largest country in the world in terms of population, incarcerates individuals at a rate of 120 per 100,000. Although China has four times the population, the democratic United States – the land of the free – incarcerates its population at a rate six times that of China. These rates of incarceration have not always been the norm in the United States, and a higher incidence of crime is not to blame. Changes in prison sentencing laws since the onset of the War on Drugs in the ‘70s, not rising crime rates, have led the United States to have the largest incarcerated population in the world.

President Richard Nixon hinted at the birth of a government drug offensive when he declared drug abuse “America’s public enemy number one” in 1971. The government’s drug war gained momentum when politicians realized “get tough on crime” language and media hype led to increased electoral success. Ironically, when President Ronald Reagan officially announced the “War on Drugs” in October 1982, only a small percentage of Americans viewed drugs as an important issue.

Today when asked about the status of the War on Drugs many Americans do not know what it is, see it as a policy of the past, or believe it is being fought in Central and South America rather than the streets of their own country. As drug use is one of the largest causes for incarceration, then perhaps the War on Drugs has ultimately failed. Instead of tackling drug abuse and its effects, drug laws have instead isolated parts of the American population by locking people up and throwing away the key.

Since the advent of the War on Drugs, the United States’ prison population has climbed by 800 percent, mostly due to expanded sentencing for drug offenders, especially crack offenders, while the national population as a whole has only increased by a third. The incarceration rates seen today are defined as “mass incarceration” because the large number of people behind bars is disproportionate to the size of the country’s population. Moreover, the United States not only has the world’s highest incarceration rate, but the highest rate of recidivism as well.

One might think that incarceration rates are the result of increased crime rates, but instead, studies show increased incarceration

24

and recidivism rates stem from policy choices and discriminatory practices. Many studies show that prison statistics convey more about the differential enforcement of the law, race, social class, and other biases than crime itself. Incarceration rates, therefore, turn out to be a faulty measure of crime. The tough stance of the War on Drugs did little to impact illegal drug use. The nation’s incarceration rate has grown significantly due to expanded drug sentencing during the past forty years of the War on Drugs; over the same time period, illegal drug use has remained relatively consistent. Sentencing for other crimes has remained unchanged over that same time period while the opposite has happened with drug offenses. These statistics clearly do not match up, and, instead, illustrate how unjust drug sentencing laws in the United States are threatening civil rights and costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year.

Cost-wise, the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ budget alone grew by 600 percent since the start of the War on Drugs. Today, federal prisons are filled to nearly 40 percent over capacity. In the United States there are differing levels of incarceration, such as county, state, or federal facilities. Convicted individuals or those awaiting trial are sentenced to a prison facility on the basis of the crime committed.

The United States, with only percent of the world’s population, has 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Individuals convicted of federal crimes, which for drug crimes mostly depend on the amount of drugs involved, are sentenced under federal law and then sent to federal prison facilities. The federal prison system houses 10 percent of the country’s inmates. The federal system’s population may seem small, but it is larger than any single state’s prison population. Ever since the War on Drugs began, the federal prison population has multiplied more than nine times over. About half of all federal prisoners are drug offenders. On average, drug offenders will serve longer prison sentences than those convicted of most other crimes.

The evolution of America’s approach to drug control radically changed the United States’ approach to crime, drug enforcement, and punishment. Regardless of the fact that current evidence shows a downward slope in crime rates, drug arrests and incarceration rates continue to rise.

Hayley Levy is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences.

She can be reached at h.levy@wustl.edu.

Suburban Policy in City Life: The Far Reaching Consequences of Housing Discrimination Grace Feenstra

W

hen considering pressing urban issues, it may seem counterintuitive to look at the suburbs as an important factor in urban policy. However, the explosion of the suburbs can provide important information about government policy relating to cities, and about systemic discrimination that lingers to this day.

The current tax code provides several incentives for homeownership. Residential construction and the costs associated with homebuilding are important components of the national economy, and the federal government attempts to stimulate this construction through tax credits for those who take out a mortgage to buy a home. These tax credits are not available to city dwellers who pay rent on an apartment. The government has taken significant steps to guarantee and insure loans made to those who want to own a home. In addition, highway infrastructure is highly prioritized, making the commute into the city quick and easy for those who wish to live elsewhere.

In order to build the large number of homes needed after World War II, the government turned to private builders. At the time, there were few large construction corporations, but the profit incentive led to a spike in large builders, who bought huge tracts of land and could construct a large number of homes inexpensively. These large companies also formed housing lobbies that went to Washington D.C. to ensure that the government preference for suburban living would

continue. While not directly targeting urban living, these government policies have made it so that, over the last 50 years, homes in the suburbs have been financially appealing to large groups of Americans. Over the course of the last few decades, the combination of inexpensive housing and tax credits for home ownership – along with campaigns designed to portray the green, open living in the suburbs as a preferred alternative to crowded urban life – has resulted in the middle and upper class moving away from the city. Today’s cities have a smaller tax base and are less able to provide important services to their inhabitants.

Another important aspect about the trend towards suburban life is the way in which the move to the suburbs is polarized by race.

Suburbs skew largely white across the nation, and this trend is particularly prominent in certain cities such as Milwaukee, known as one of the most segregated cities of America. The city of Milwaukee is over 40 percent African-American, but only 2 percent of people in the Milwaukee suburbs are African-American. Although scholars initially believed this could be due to the propensity of races to live together, research makes it clear that institutionalized racism plays a large role in this racial disparity, as minorities are often denied access to suburban living.

There are several stages during which discrimination plays a

25

Chart based on a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development study showing a pattern of discrimination against minorities seeking information to rent or purchase a home.

role in the housing process. Local governments can write zoning codes that do not allow for multi-family homes or specify large minimum lot sizes; this excludes low-income families, often people of color, from many suburban areas. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) undertakes an extensive studies of real estate agent discrimination. The most recent study, in 2012, shows that minorities are less likely to be given information about available houses and are shown fewer units than whites. Agents also use language to steer white prospective buyers away from neighborhoods with large numbers of minority residents. This accentuates the segregation already prevalent in cities. Insurance companies and lending agencies have historically discriminated against minorities. The federal government itself once participated in these discriminatory trends, although in recent decades it has put measures in place to try to stop discrimination on the part of financial institutions.

Despite stricter enforcement, studies still show that minorities face higher denial rates for financing than their white counterparts. Without available financing, suburban life becomes inaccessible. The multiplicity of agents in the private market who participate in the housing process means that there are plenty of opportunities for discrimination at each stage. Although reforms, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, make it more difficult for agents to discriminate, recent studies show that minorities who seek to buy a home in the suburbs are often not given the same information and assistance as their white counterparts.

26

Policymakers should not assume that all people have a desire to live in the suburbs – many may prefer staying in the city limits to moving farther away. The option of moving

Life in the city is, in part, defined by life in the surrounding suburbs.

The problem lies in the fact that ‌ only certain people have access to that suburban life. to the suburbs, however, is not available for many people due to discriminatory practices, and the financial incentives the suburbs provide then also become out of reach. Not all Americans wish to live in the suburbs, but this should be a choice by the individual, not a reality imposed due to discrimination in the process.

Residential segregation is important, not only because of tax incentives that those in the city do not receive, but also because of the far-reaching consequences of residential segregation. For most Americans, their home is their primary financial asset. The ability to pass on a home, or the value of a home, to future generations provides longterm wealth in a family. Those who are unable to get financing to own a home or who have houses in lower-valued neighborhoods have less generational wealth to hand down.

Family wealth, not income, is a key factor in outcomes linked to health, educational attainment, crime, and other social statistics.

Continuing to perpetuate wealth disparities between races will lead to many poor, often minority youth, who attend schools in cities with a shrinking tax base, and whose families do not have the wealth to send their children to better schools or provide them with the resources needed to succeed.

The foreclosures in the wake of the Great Recession, which disproportionately impacted minorities, have only broadened this gap.

In 2009, white Americans, on average, had 20 times the wealth of African Americans, and 18 times the wealth of Hispanic Americans, according to a Pew Research Center study.

These gaps have increased since 2005, and are the largest since the study began 25 years ago. The foreclosures in the recession have led to new forms of discrimination. Houses that have been foreclosed on in white neighborhoods tend to be maintained and kept in better condition by the bank than houses in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

Ill-kept houses lower the house price and neighborhood appeal of surrounding homes, meaning that the wealth of those in surrounding homes decreases as well.

Life in the city is, in part, defined by life in the surrounding suburbs. Life in the suburbs is important, but a closer analysis of who can live in the suburbs and what that life affords someone shows that the suburban trend continues to polarize groups in America. Choosing to live in the suburbs is not, in and of itself, negative. The problem lies in the fact that suburban life is financially incentivized through various government programs, and that only certain people have access to that suburban life. Urban policymakers must consider how to attract people who might otherwise live in the suburbs back to the city (while not forcing out the residents already there) and national policymakers must consider how to be certain that discrimination in the housing process is eliminated. Where one lives is an essential part of quality of life, and therefore we must focus on what the growth of the suburbs means for us today.

Grace Feenstra is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at gbfeenstra@wustl.edu.

Daniel Raggs III

27

Gentrification and the Changing Face of the American Population Rahmi Elahjji

I

n February 2013, a New York Times article proposed using “organic dry cleaners as a barometer for gentrification” in some of the city’s previously dilapidated neighborhoods. While the article was certainly facetious in its assessment, a changed local culture is a reality for many gentrified neighborhoods not only in New York, but also across most of the country. The process of gentrification basically represents the opposite of urban decay, where city planners and local administrators publicize a previously depressed neighborhood to businesses that will in turn attract more affluent individuals, who then continue to attract more upscale businesses.

While gentrification is in itself not a particularly new phenomenon, it has only been researched as a sociological issue in the last 30 or so years. Gentrification within cities beyond the traditional Northeast megalopolis has provided rich fodder for this sociological research. New gentrification in cities in the traditional American South, the Southwest, and the West Coast shows a direct correlation with dramatic population growth among these urban centers, suggesting that gentrification has at least played a contributing role in encouraging internal immigration of Americans towards the South and West.

Cities like Houston, Tampa, and Atlanta have seen their populations boom in the past decade. What all three cities have in common is a substantial growth of younger professionals attracted to newly refurbished living spaces in previously diminished neighborhoods.

In Houston, developers have taken aim at the city’s Third Ward, a historically AfricanAmerican neighborhood that has been recently subject to the conversion of renters’ property to more luxurious townhomes and condominiums. Developers correctly predicted that the neighborhood’s vibrant local food and music culture as well as its very close proximity to the city’s central business district would attract a swath of more affluent consumers to the neighborhood. This influx of new residents has caused tensions in the neighborhood, due to the steadily increasing rents in the area. Several activists and opposition groups have lobbied to reduce redevelopment in the area as a means of preserving local culture.

28

A similar narrative holds for neighborhoods in both Tampa and Atlanta, with historically less affluent neighborhoods comprised of greater minority populations being renovated to attract more affluent residents, usually at the expense of former residents.

Atlanta has seen 28 percent of its low-income

parent that changing the demographic and socioeconomic makeup also affects the political significance of a neighborhood. It is common knowledge among political scientists that participation in the political process, especially at the local level, increases with income. At the same time, issues that more

From a political standpoint, gentrification represents a means of economic gerrymandering, where the demographic makeups of a neighborhood, district, parish, or other local division can be manipulated to bring about some political benefits. housing tracts experience gentrification between 2000 and 2007. The same is true for 21 percent of Tampa’s low-income neighborhoods. Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco have also experienced comparable rates.

These figures all suggest that cities beyond the traditional urban centers of the Northeast have experienced these demographic shifts.

Not only have these cities all undergone gentrification to some degree, they all have experienced substantial population growth since the 2000 census. The majority of the nation’s fastest growing cities all lie in the southern or western United States. At the same time the majority of the nation’s slowest growing cities lie in the Northeast or the Midwest.

While this substantial population shift cannot altogether be attributed to gentrification, gentrification has caused some changes in the demographic and economic makeup of these cities by attracting more affluent residents. These shifts also have considerable political implications, especially considering that many of the states that gained electoral votes in the last census redistribution were states in the southern and western portions of the country. Many of these states are home to the cities that experienced the most significant rates of gentrification in the time period.

Without delving too far into the debate on the sociological and moral issues surrounding gentrification and simply focusing on its political implications, it becomes ap-

affluent voters prioritize, such as recreation and tax breaks, differ from those that less affluent voters would prioritizes, such as social welfare and employment opportunities.

From a political standpoint, gentrification represents a means of economic gerrymandering, where the demographic makeups of a neighborhood, district, parish, or other local division are manipulated to bring about some political consequences.

Political ramifications aside, there is no denying that when undertaken by city planners on a wider scale throughout an entire city, gentrification changes the demographic makeup of a city as well. It will be interesting to see how politicians respond to the shift of the demographic center of the country westward as well as how they respond to gentrification in confluence with other demographic issues such as immigration, and racial and socioeconomic tensions in these rapidly growing areas of the country.

Rahmi Elahjji is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rahmi.elahjji@wustl.edu.

Urban Forestry: What’s That About?

Emily Orr | Illustration by Andrew Kay

W

hat if I told you a means exists to simultaneously boost a city’s economy, increase public safety, and provide substantial health and environmental benefits? Would you believe me?

What if I told you that this means is as simple and cheap as planting a tree? Planting trees, or “urban tree projects,” has gained attention in cities across the nation. The projects themselves range from the strategic placement of trees 10-15 feet apart along city sidewalks, to the installation of trees on Silva cells to serve as green infrastructure. Regardless, both actions, and the many variations of them, constitute the next big move for local governments working with non-profits and sustainability groups to dramatically improve their cities.

Trees are the lungs of a city. This is true on a microscopic level when plant cells engage in photosynthesis and macroscopically due to the cumulative effect of each tree’s photosynthetic activity. Because the carbon dioxide consumed by trees is stored throughout its cells as other carbon compounds, one acre of trees is able to absorb the amount of carbon dioxide released from a car traveling 26,000 miles each year. Therefore, in a way, trees are natural filter systems to reduce levels of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide reduction, plus the lower temperatures of concrete due to tree shade, decreases the average temperature of a city, combating the “heat island effect” caused by urban areas.

Additionally, a tree’s leaves trap and hold particulate matter, small pollutants that damage lungs and trigger asthma attacks, until it is washed away by rainfall into storm drainage facilities. Thus, trees provide cities with significant environmental and health benefits. And I’m just getting started.

From an economic perspective, urban forestry considerably aids nearby businesses and residents. A 2006 Michigan urban design study shows that streets with treescaping attract more businesses, tourists, and consumers than do tree-free areas. In fact, businesses on these streets show a 12 percent increase in income while benefiting from a 10-15 percent increase of property value.

Furthermore, buildings can easily reduce air conditioning and heating costs due to the shade and insulation that trees provide. Even

the city itself benefits from this shading. The same article discusses how tree coverage of large asphalt and concrete areas leads to a reduction in the cracking of concrete from sun exposure, resulting in 40-60 percent increases of pavement lifespan.

Moreover, treescaping dramatically increases public safety in cities. A University of Illinois study of Chicago socio-cultural benefits indicated that trees could cut crime by as much as 7 percent. Generally speaking, the presence of trees encourages citizens to walk more, which develops a greater sense of community and causes people to have greater concern for their property and neighborhoods. The aesthetic and natural aspect of trees is also known to relax and improve the psychological health of an individual.

This effect accordingly translates to public road safety. Trees that border streets have proven to reduce drivers’ speeds and run-offroad crashes by providing a reference point of speed and direction to drivers. This barrier of trees between sidewalk and street also serves to protect pedestrians, creating a safer community.

I could go on, rattling off a litany of benefits – how urban forestry reduces need for storm water management systems, stabilizes watersheds, reduces soil erosion, etc. – without even taking into account the aesthetic and natural value the trees provide. But for any local government, it all boils down to the following conclusion: a single street tree, with installation costs ranging from $250-600, returns more than $90,000 of direct benefits to a city. These numbers have not gone unnoticed. In addition to hundreds of state and local efforts to plant more urban trees, the national US Forest Services has initiated the

Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) to “provide technical, financial, research, and education services to local government.”

Yet in our own community, St. Louis has only implemented two urban tree programs. Firstly, the County Parks Urban Tree Program, introduced in 2005, asks for sponsorships of trees to promote urban forestry in the community. Between the Urban Tree Program and its predecessor, the Memorial Tree Program, the department has planted over 4,000 trees in St. Louis County. However, St. Louis’s other program, the Green Tree Academy, has lacked funding to hold any of its educational programs since 2011.

It all boils down to the following conclusion: a single street tree returns more than $90,000 of direct benefits to a city.

Thus, though St. Louis has begun to explore the potential benefits of planting trees, the city is still largely behind the national trend.

Hopefully, as other local governments and non-profits across the country endorse this sustainable and beneficial undertaking, St. Louis will similarly take full advantage of treescaping’s potential to improve the city’s health, economy, environment, and future.

Emily Orr is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at emilyjorr@wustl.edu.

29

Public Transit as Access to Employment Sean Janda | Illustration by Alex Chiu

I

n any contemporary American debate about how government can work to improve the prospects of the impoverished or the state of the urban environment, it is virtually certain that at least one participant— and, in many cases, both participants—will repeatedly circle back to the necessity of job creation. Unfortunately, creating more jobs is only part of the puzzle; for these jobs to have a positive impact on urban centers, individuals living in high-density low-income neigh-

30

borhoods (who often may not have access to a car) must be able to reach them. In this article, I will use Philadelphia as a case-study in order to examine how publicly accessible various urban and suburban job centers are from low-income neighborhoods in the city.

In order to accomplish this task, I have picked eight sites in the Philadelphia region— five in low-income neighborhoods in the city and three in wealthier suburbs. From there, I have used Google Maps to analyze transpor-

tation times from these sites to various other locations; I will explain more about the exact destinations in each individual case as I move through the analysis.

I will begin by examining access to the Central Business District (also known in Philadelphia as Center City). This area, which is located between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers in the middle (in terms of the north-south axis) of the city, is the economic and cultural center of the region. In addition to housing a very large number of concentrated jobs, the area is also home to most local (city) government functions as well as the majority of the cultural draws of the area—the Philadelphia Symphony, most major theatres, etc. In addition, this district is clearly the area around which most of the regional rail and subway networks of the city are meant to revolve. Many of the rail lines in use today were originally built over a century ago in order to move goods and people into and out of the city, and this focus on the Central Business District is reflected in the location of these lines. In fact, every regional rail line comes together here before splitting and moving out to the suburbs.

Based on this focus on Center City dating back to the original construction of these rail lines, I think it would be reasonable to expect that the public transportation network would do a good job at connecting people to this area. The analysis of the data confirms this original hypothesis. From all eight locations, it is relatively easy to get into the Central Business District. From the city locations, commute times by car to Suburban Station (located in the CBD) ranged from 11 to 24 minutes, while public transportation commute times ranged from 23 to 53 minutes.

From the suburban locations, car commute times varied from 24 to 42 minutes, while public transportation times ranged from 55 to 70 minutes. Therefore, public transportation provides reasonably fast—and relatively equal—access to Center City from both the wealthier suburban areas and the low-income urban neighborhoods, as public transportation commute times were generally two to two-and-a-half times as long as private, car-based, commute times.

Unfortunately for residents of low-income neighborhoods, while Center City may contain the most concentrated employment opportunities, in reality, most jobs in the re-

gion—and particularly most low-skill jobs—are located elsewhere. In fact, in the Philadelphia region, only 25 percent of low-wage jobs are located in the city (not just in Center City, but in the entire city), while 75 percent of low-wage jobs are located in the suburbs. In addition, the fact that this shift of employment opportunities out of the city is ongoing means that a disproportionately large number of new job openings are in the suburbs. Thus, if we wish to analyze how well public transportation connects low-income neighborhoods to employment opportunities, we need to expand our analysis to look at areas outside of Center City.

At first glance, it seems safe to assume that it will be relatively hard for residents of low-income neighborhoods to use public transportation to access job opportunities in the suburbs. As mentioned previously, most of the rail lines currently in use were specifically built to connect Center City to other areas; as a result, it appears as if lateral movement may be difficult. To test this hypothesis, I went back to the five urban locations that I had already identified and used in the previous analysis. Now, however, instead of examining transportation times to Suburban Station, I examined transportation times to five other areas—the King of Prussia Mall, the Franklin Mills Mall, an unnamed suburban office park, The Navy Yard, and the River Wards. These five areas—two malls, an office park, and two industrial areas—represent potential employment centers for low-income workers.

Across all 25 commutes from low-income neighborhoods to nonCenter City low-skill employment hubs, public transportation takes substantially longer than a car commute would. In fact, on average, the public transportation commute is 3.5 times as long as the car commute: the average commute time across the 25 commutes goes from 23.24 minutes by car to 79.48 minutes by public transportation.

To provide a point of comparison, from the three suburban locations that I identified before, the average commute time to the five employment centers was 29.66 minutes. Thus, the suburban locations are, on average, 128 percent as far away from the employment centers as the urban locations are, but a commuter with a car could complete the average commute from the suburban locations in 37 percent of the time that it would take a commuter without a car to complete the average commute from the urban locations. The inaccessibility of these employment locations is supported by actual commute data; according to data collected by the United States census, only about 20 percent of employed Philadelphia residents commute to jobs that are outside of the city.

In addition, it is important to note a few additional things. First, these commute times are one-way commute times. Thus, for the average urban resident looking to make a round-trip commute, public transportation would take an additional (nearly) two hours every day. Second, while I have focused on average commute ratios in the preceding paragraph, it is important to note the extreme variability in these ratios—they go from 1.96 all the way to 4.88. Thus, some employment centers are substantially easier than average to reach from certain neighborhoods (and, of course, some are substantially harder than average to reach from certain neighborhoods). For an individual who is already employed and is looking to move to one of these neighborhoods, this variability could be an asset; she could choose to focus her housing search on a neighborhood particularly well-connected to

her employment location and, perhaps, end up with a public transportation commute time substantially less than 80 minutes. On the other hand, for an individual who is already living in one of these neighborhoods and is trying to find a job, this variability is problematic, because it means that his employment location possibilities could be restricted to the relatively small number of employment centers that have below-average commute ratios from his neighborhoods. Finally, moving beyond commute times, it is very important to recognize the upfront costs associated with taking advantage of these public transportation networks. A SEPTA TransPass, which allows the holder to ride on buses, costs $91 per month, while TrailPasses, which allow the holder to ride on buses and on regional rail, cost from $101 to $191 per month, depending on how far away from Center City the

For the 500,000 Philadelphia residents who live in households without a car, it is nearly impossible to access the vast majority of job openings for low-skill positions. rider wishes to be able to travel. Generally speaking, it is probably safe to assume that for individuals to obtain employment in the suburbs, they must, at some point, visit the site in person—either to fill out an application or for an interview (or both). Thus, individuals who wish to be employed at jobs in the suburbs may often be forced to make investments in TransPasses or TrailPasses before they are able to seriously search for jobs, and the price of theses passes could potentially pose a significant barrier to individuals who are currently unemployed and searching for work.

The implications of this analysis are clear. For the 500,000 Philadelphia residents who live in households without a car, it is nearly impossible to access the vast majority of job openings for low-skill positions. As a result, if politicians wish to work on revitalizing urban neighborhoods and reducing unemployment in the urban environment, a simple focus on “job creation” will not be sufficient. Instead, policy makers must focus on creating new job opportunities that are easily accessible from high-density low-income neighborhoods, either by shifting incentives to spur job creation in and near these areas or by expanding public transportation programs in order to further residents’ ability to move to job centers beyond the central business district.

Sean is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at seanjanda@wustl.edu.

31

32

Talking Points 425

117

$19 million

Officers who have left the Detroit Police Department since the start of 2012.

Boxes of cookies sold by a 13-year-old Girl Scout outside of a San Francisco medical marijuana clinic on February 17.

The amount Facebook paid to purchase the messaging startup WhatsApp.

229

$1 billion

22,000

Americans who competed in Sochi Winter Olympics, the most of any nation.

The estimated fortune of Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman, the recently arrested leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel.

Homeless children in New York City.

“This commences a new life for Ukraine.

This is only a start. We need now to make a new structure and a new system, a foundation for our future, with rights for everybody, and we need to investigate who ordered the violence.”

–Roman Dakus, a member of a Ukrainian opposition group, in an interview with the New York Times after President Viktor F. Yanukovych fled the presidential palace outside of Kiev.

Protestors and the police face off in Kiev late last year.

33