Movement

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

POLITICAL

REVIEW

31.4 | December 2019 | wupr.org

Table of Contents 6

The Risk of Morality and Movement Politics Elena Murray

20

Capoeira: A Movement Beyond that of Dance Aruni Soni

7

Theme Art Ashley Roh

22

Theme Art Merry May

8

Private but Viral Jon Niewjik

23

Political Movement Grethe Andersen

10

MORENA: The Fight for Mexico's Soul Christian Monzรณn

24

Theme Art Reshad Hamauon

13

The Culture of Protest in Latin America Salil Uttarwar

25

Universities Profiting Off of Black Bodies Clare Grindinger

14

The Privilege of Movement Nidhi Krishnan

26

2020 Election: The Online Battlefield Rachel Olick-Gibson

(Re)Building an Olympics Host City Andrew Leung

28

Covering Earth In Th 21st Century Ishaan Shah

WashUber Sophie Attie

30

Assad Remains in Power, Kurds Betrayed Clare rindinger

Movement

National

International

16

18

Editors' Note Executive Director Ishaan Shah Editors-in-Chief Hanna Khalil Sophie Attie Design Director Catherine Ju Staff Editors Max Lichtenstein Christian MonzĂłn Jon Niewjik Rohan Palacios Features Editors Nick Massenburg Megan Orlanski Assistant Design Directors Leslie Liu Jinny Park Programming Director Liza Sivriver Treasurer Natalia Rodriguez Web Editor Adler Bowman Assistant Web Editor Yanny Liang Front & Back Covers Haejin An, staff artist Theme Spread: Thomas Fruhauf, staff artist Feature Designs: Leslie Liu Jinny Park

Dear Reader, From our walks to campus, to the places we relocate to after graduation, to the causes we rally behind, movement is a persistent element in our existence, preventing a life lived in stagnation. Through movement we express ourselves both individually and as parts of larger cultural communities.

Connecting the personal and the political, movement requires a constant negotiation of space and boundaries. At the most individual level, movement allows for the expression of emotion through the interaction of our bodies with the immediate space around us. On a larger scale, political movements bring together hundreds, thousands, and millions of bodies in order to articulate demands for change that are bigger than any one person.

In this issue of WUPR, our writers demonstrate the various directions in which the theme of Movement can be taken. Article topics range from the rich history of the Brazilian martial arts dance, Capoeira, to the role that social media plays in moving our ideas around the web.

Many of our writers took literal approaches to this issue’s theme, inspecting the roles of physical movement in our societies. Grethe Andersen takes on the Movement issue by highlighting polarizing trends in United States moving companies. Nidhi Krishnan reflects on the privileges associated with movement. Sophie Attie looks into Uber trends within our community and the ways in which students use the transportation app to move around campus.

Some writers approached Movement through a more abstract lens. Elena Murray provides an insightful analysis of the role of movement politics in political campaigns today. Salil Uttarwar looks at how political movements have become embedded into Latin American culture. Christian Monzon follows the role of MORENA, a movement group in Mexico, and how it has affected Mexican politics.

And, as always, we have articles discussing a broad array of national and international topics.

We hope this issue of the Washington University Political Review will inspire you, our readers, to reflect upon the many ways in which movement helps us navigate space, from that which our bodies take up in relation to the rooms we inhabit, to the renegotiation of the meanings of national borders.

Warmly, Sophie Attie & Hanna Khalil Editors-in-Chief

WU Political Review

The Risk of Morality and Movement Politics Elena Murray, staff writer

W

hat do Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have in common? At the surface, both are white males from the Northeast. Both have been mocked for their hair, though for its color and unruliness, respectively. Obviously, both are consequential figures in the United States’ current political climate. But perhaps most significantly, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both employ urgent, inflammatory prose in their respective brands of movement politics, galvanizing their base into preaching their messages themselves. In stark contrast with the policy-based campaigns of, for instance, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders energize supporters to fight in a seemingly all-encompassing battle between diametrically opposed systems of morality.

But it is worth considering whether these campaigns of movement politics are what we want political participation to look like in the United States. Should the battle for the highest political office in the country be a bitter one pitting good against evil, right against wrong? Moreover, does a tired, preoccupied, and generally uninvolved electorate have enough mental stamina to withstand such pervasive, morally pressing election cycles? The strategy of movement politics is exhausting, both for the candidates employing it and for their potential voters. Dividing the nation by solidifying faction allegiances and discouraging moderate voters, movement politics threatens the efficacy of American democracy.

The distinction between movement politics and general populism is thin, with the two overlapping throughout much of political history.

Populism appeals to class conflict, emphasizing conflict between the people and societal elites, between haves and the have-nots; movement politics, meanwhile, pertains to issues—often moral ones—and uses them to drive voter engagement. Populist appeals usually involve movement politics, but movement politics need not employ populism. For instance, Democratic

6

presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren uses both populism and movement politics. Her attacks on corporations highlight class conflict and simultaneously moralize the issue, creating a broad movement of support for her policies.

By contrast, environmentalist candidates may run on the basis that protecting the environment is morally required of humanity as the planet’s dominant species and inspire an environmentalist movement without invoking arguments pertaining to the profits of fossil fuel corporations. In past years, however, some candidates for office ran—and won—all but exclusively on policy, not needing to invoke wide-ranging class struggles or broad injustices to secure votes.

Recently, candidates often wield populism in conjunction with movement politics to mobilize their most ardent supporters in the hopes that a tidal wave of ballots will sweep them into office. Movement politics enhances and energizes debates, interviews, signature quotes, and rallies. Loud, fervent supporters feel as though they collectively form something bigger than themselves, each merely one member of a vast crusade to forever remedy a true illness of the world. Upon achieving election victory, elation and optimism toward the future permeate the base’s ranks.

Upon losing, however, a candidate’s supporters feel a hit of cataclysmic proportions. When Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, for instance, countless voters took to social media in despair. Cable news interviewees predicted America’s imminent demise, its inevitable descent into moral squalor. But while the Trump administration’s effect on the United States is debatable, the country remains intact and moderate optimism permeates among former Clinton supporters that any changes under his administration are rectifiable. With the failure of Clinton’s movement for women in political office, many of her voters now flock to others for the 2020 primary. Aligning themselves again with candidates who employ strategies of movement

politics, those political participants gear up once more for what will be an unquestionably bitter election cycle. They hope to knock Donald Trump out of office by swaying public opinion against him and swinging the pendulum of political favor back toward them more brutally than it was torn from them in 2016.

But despite the increasing popularity of movement politics, polling reveals that most Americans remain moderate on most political issues. With no strong alignment to either side, opposing sides trap the moderate American.

Stuck with only two parties, both of whom noisily preach moral perspectives and hurl insults at the other, alienated moderates are less likely to vote at all. The vigor and moral necessity of movement politics discourages the very voters it hopes to spur, rendering it a questionable tactic when the goal is winning over essential moderates.

When politics are moralized, the high of victory reaches the stratosphere, while the low of defeat sinks to the earth’s core. The battle itself pits the moral “us” against the immoral “them,” making any compromise an unforgivable betrayal of ideals. But in politics, where each side inevitably wins some fights and loses others, a compromise toward the moderate values of most Americans is often necessary. In considering the all-or-nothing, all-encompassing style of movement politics, we must ask ourselves: is victory worth its cost?

Elena Murray ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at elenamurray@wustl. edu.

Movement

Artwork by Ashley Roh

7

WU Political Review

Private but Viral Jon Niewijk, staff editor

A

few years ago, #KillAllMen made its divisive rounds on social media. This phrase was controversial for all the reasons you might imagine. One point of conflict was identity-based: those outraged by it complained that substituting almost any other identity group for “men” would be deemed abhorrent by the very people using it in their posts. The phrase’s defenders countered that almost no other identity group enjoys the same clear-cut dominance in modern and historical power structures, and so “men-bashing” was acceptable in this context.

The other conflict arose from the actual wording of the hashtag; its users said that the phrase was shorthand for something along the lines of “we’re sick of dealing with a subset of unpleasant men that perpetuate sexism and misogyny.”

Their critics’ counter was that, in a public sphere like Twitter or Facebook, such shorthand is unacceptable. Where you stand on the first issue depends on a host of priors that one article cannot resolve. But the second issue warrants more discussion because technology’s ability to move human expression out of its intended context has upended definition of what is and is not a public forum.

Large groups of humans have always broken themselves into smaller, closer groups, and the Internet has not changed this trend. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and any other platform are home to countless sub-communities, from dog moms to graphic designers to deer hunters.

Communities have their own cultures, worldviews, and rhetoric that can be confusing or offensive to outsiders.

What distinguishes these social media communities from their historical counterparts is that outsiders have unprecedented access to these groups’ inner dialogue. The mechanisms for sharing and liking/disliking posts can elevate a phrase or idea meant for a small, specific audience to extreme publicity among a wide range of different groups. In fact, on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, unless you intentionally change your privacy settings, every post or tweet may as well be published media

8

For the first time in history, people are regularly speaking with people they are not speaking to. content.

Back to #KillAllMen. The communities that used this phrase were largely female and feminist.

Their members had lots of context and experience that contributed to both the motivation and meaning of that phrase, so it was neither offensive to members of that group nor a call for the slaughter of 3.5 billion people. But to many people outside those communities, it was both those things. A 65-year old man who just got on Twitter and doesn’t spend much time with millennial feminists will likely take the hashtag at face value. A feminist posting on Twitter may rightly protest she is not addressing the 65-year old. She is, however, talking within virtual earshot of him.

For the first time in history, people are regularly speaking with people they are not speaking to. Politicians and journalists are no longer the only people who must write and speak with the knowledge that every word may be interpreted in the worst way possible and that there are strong incentives to spread those interpretations. The statements by an outgroup that will get the most attention from an ingroup are those that make the outgroup look the worst. An avid chicken griller will be far more likely to share a news story about a vegetarian who wants to put all chicken grillers in jail than they would a story about a vegetarian who doesn’t like the taste of meat.

This phenomenon of content traveling far beyond its intended audience has a name: context collapse. Coined by researchers at MIT’s Media Lab, context collapse refers to many disparate

audiences simultaneously encountering content that may not have been targeted towards any of them. Context collapse is the realization that a conversation during your 8th-grade sleepover is being transcribed onto a billboard overlooking the nearby interstate.

Context collapse goes beyond individual reactions to the statements of those outside their tribes. 20 years ago, the idea that you could be fired for expressing what you think about a high school buddy’s fishing picture would be insane.

Now, while the intended context of your comment may be a joke targeted at an old friend and no one else, its potential audience could interpret it as a PR statement that represents your employer. The threat of virality makes everyone associated with a person potentially liable for every reaction anyone on the Internet might have to everything that a person might say.

That’s terrifying.

Social media, especially platforms with character or video-length limits like Twitter, are also optimized to remove even face value context. A post may be one part of a long series, but none of those other parts matter if that one contains the right buzzwords. For example, a post may be clearly satirical in the context of the series it is part of, but then outsiders interpret it literally when it goes viral as a standalone piece of content. The speed at which something can go viral also means that by the time someone realizes a post of theirs has been misinterpreted, it is far too late to clarify. A final inhibitor is that a person’s body language and facial expressions provide lots of context for their statements; 280 characters eliminates these signals.

Over the past 15 years, people have become more aware of how context collapse can take their statements to places they never expected.

Many people have begun to self-censor what they post online, whether by removing drunk photos of themselves or refraining from tweeting jokes for fear that they will be misinterpreted.

But while people have begun to understand context collapse, they are still quite unsympathetic towards its victims. And often its most severe victims are people who did not understand the

Movement

risk associated with their online statements and could not have known better when they said the things they did. These people are our former selves.

Time periods are also their own contexts, and they can collapse just like any other. For example, as a 9th grader, I did not consider what my college friends would think of the Instagram photos and captions I posted back in 2014.

Although I could have deleted those photos at any time if I had posted something that my high school soccer team would have understood but my freshman floor would not, all it would have taken was one person having the wrong reaction for the whole thing to blow up in my face. The idea that your birthday wishes to your cousin in 2009 can be seen to represent your employer in 2019 is something that most people now accept as fact. But most people do not extend any grace to the individual in 2009; they evaluate people as if their past selves are specifically addressing everyone that hears them in the present.

People’s online actions can wreck their careers and relationships, sometimes because they simply don’t realize the scope of their audience.

However, as more people come to terms with the extent to which their content can move beyond its targets, the way we use social media will change. Similar to the way corporate speak converges on a series of bland, universal buzzwords, and mainstream media outlets rarely say anything their audiences won’t like, people are becoming more aware that what they say has to be acceptable to people whose reactions they can’t anticipate.

We should think about the group a person is addressing, not the crowd listening in.

The threat of virality makes everyone associated with you potentially liable for everything that you might say. That’s terrifying.

This adjustment extends past social media users to the platforms themselves. They are beginning to realize that people don’t want to talk to everyone all the time. In the past several years, Snapchat and Instagram have introduced features that allow users to limit who can see their public stories. These private stories help users reclaim their ability to address a specific audience and no one else. Facebook has also contributed in this sphere in the past five years by making more users’ content invisible to everyone except their friends. Twitter has, well, not followed suit, and only gotten worse if anything, likely because ordinary users going viral has always been one of the platform’s core attractions.

In 2017, Facebook changed its core mission statement to “bring the world closer together.”

But people often separate themselves because there are quite a lot of people that they would rather not be close to. Facebook and its fellow platforms have brought many worlds together that were never meant to be that way, and it has only driven us further apart. Mitigating the negative effects of this context collapse requires more than privacy options on their part or self-censorship on ours. It also requires a

normative shift towards suspending instinctual reactions toward a person’s online statements until we know their full context. We should not count decade-old posts against a person, except in the most extreme circumstances. We should not be eager to spread content to people that will angrily misinterpret it. And we should think about the group a person is addressing, not the crowd listening in. After all, we would all love to receive the same grace if we were the ones under scrutiny.

Jon Niewijk ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jniewijk@wustl.edu.

9

Christian Monzón, staff editor

Artwork by Leslie Liu, assistant design director

words by Christian

Monzón, staff editor art by leslie liu, assistant design director

y Dad grew up in Celaya, Guanajuato, a central Mexican city of half a million people in a region affectionately known as La Cuna de Independencia—the cradle of Mexican independence and the Mexican heartland. He lived near the city center, where street vendors sold tacos and tamales, and tortillerias and carnicerias sold daily fresh tortillas and meat. When we visited in Summer 2018, street vendors and tortillerias and carnicerias abounded in a true modern city, naturally paired with American superstores like Costco and Home Depot.

But just one year later, Celaya’s streets run nearly empty in a city brought to its knees. My family, once ecstatic upon our arrival, now implore us not to return; my cousins, once insistent we go out for 4am tacos, now hesitate upon leaving their homes at night. Six months before my family visited Celaya, the state of Guanajuato saw an already terrifyingly high 62 homicides in the first 10 days of 2018—just over 6 murders per day.

Just one year later in January 2019, Guanajuato ended the month with 275 homicides, a rate of nearly 9 murders per day. Shockingly, though, violence in Mexico overall, while less than in Guanajuato, remains high at 27.7 murders per

100,000 residents.

Danger in Mexico intensified amidst Andres Manuel López Obrador’s (sometimes referred to by his initials, AMLO) rise to the presidency in July 2018. López Obrador won by a landslide (52.9 percent of the vote). After already losing two elections, he created a new party, el movimiento de la regeneración nacional (National Regeneration Movement, or MORENA).

MORENA more than won Mexico’s presidency—it won Mexico’s spirit over promises of eliminating corruption in a country that loses millions of pesos every year to misappropriation

of funds, whose police forces largely work in the pockets of cartel bosses, and in which 130 political workers lost their lives leading up to the election. AMLO calls Mexico’s corrupt institutions the “mafia de poder,” the mafia of power, and painted himself as Mexico’s savior by vowing to eliminate it.

Mexican voters, unhappy with presidencies of Enrique Peña Nieto (from the center-left PRI— the institutional revolutionary party) and Felipe Calderón (from the far right PAN—the national action party)—both of which oversaw Mexico’s failed war on drugs—overwhelmingly voted for AMLO and MORENA. Under all other alternatives, the government failed them.

In fact, MORENA dominated every single state in Mexico except Guanajuato, the only one that voted against AMLO. In Celaya, my family members viewed him as the Mexican Hugo Chavez— a communist dictator, whose socialist principles and radical leftism would spell economic doom.

They scapegoat him for Celaya’s problems, which augmented significantly after his election.

As the beginning of his 6-year term coincides with Celaya’s implosion, understanding how he deserves (and does not deserve) the blame for Celaya’s, Guanajuato’s, and all of Mexico’s instability can explain MORENA not only as a political movement, but as a broad appeal to change Mexico’s political, economic and communal culture.

Immediately upon assuming the presidency, AMLO began holding daily press briefings, a

him tired of pretentious politicians. Additionally, AMLO reaffirmed policies cutting politicians’ salaries—at one of his first conferences, he said “it is dishonest when an official received up to 600 thousand pesos a month [about $29,000].

That is corruption.” Populism, connecting the government to the people, and abandoning elitist traditions formed MORENA’s foundations and the basis of López Obrador’s policies.

But AMLO simultaneously represents MORENA the movement and MORENA the political party; so, while AMLO’s policies tried to improve government transparency, he also needed to fulfill political obligations to Mexico’s elites and party members. In fact, despite his populist rhetoric on corruption, his government has failed to truly prosecute any corrupt politicians. Of all major federal projects in AMLO’s first three months, he awarded 70 percent of them directly without competitive bids. His questionable decisions justify my family’s skepticism of MORENA. One of my cousins, Pedro, an aspiring musician in Celaya with a daughter and family, said that voting in Mexico means choosing the least corrupt party. Whether from PAN, PRI, MORENA, or anyone else, he thinks no politician cares about him, including Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Another cousin, Cristobal, working for Celaya’s PAN-dominated city government, entirely blames MORENA. In his eyes, it started with Huachicoleo.

dramatic turn given Mexico’s poor record on press freedom. He also sold the presidential plane and abandoned the glitzy motorcades of past presidencies, a sign of austerity with Mexico’s population, most of whom voted for

Huachicoleo—gasoline robberies by local mafias—crippled Central Mexico in 2018 before AMLO captured the presidency. By the election, huachicoleros siphoned 150,000 barrels of fuel per day from Pemex, Mexico’s state oil company.

Fuel theft occurred most at Pemex’s refinery in Guanajuato, concentrating most huachicolero violence in central states. While huachicoleo’s prevalence originated decades ago, crackdowns on drug cartels during previous administrations

moved some Mexican cartels more often towards Mexico’s bountiful supply of fossil fuels.

When neoliberal PRI reforms to Mexico’s oil industry raised oil and gas prices, cartels tapped into pipelines and bribed complicit gas stations to sell their cheaper stolen fuel.

Upon inheriting a complicated huachicoleo epidemic, López Obrador ordered six major

pipelines closed in December 2019 and halted production at Gulf coast Pemex refineries, increasing Mexico’s dependence on alternative transportation across the country. Using 5,000 tanker trucks to supply gasoline to 11,000 gas stations across Mexico, AMLO’s strategy, while eliminating major huachicolero threats, forced gas station closures, leading to long lines while the increased expense of using trucks raised gas prices. Cristobal complained earlier this year that only two in all of Celaya remained open.

While likely an exaggeration, his complaints capture frustrations of a 500,000-person city amidst the huachicoleo crisis and AMLO’s inability to curb it.

Worse yet, while huachicoleo largely diminished, huachicoleros still exist, but with no more gasoline to steal, they turned to other means: extortion. On the morning of August 5 of this year, gunmen invaded local tortilleria La Indita and massacred the store, including Virginia, the owner, and two employees. Moments later, at another tortilleria, Cementos Fortaleza, gunmen assassinated an employee. Why? Because a week earlier, business owners (including tortilleria owners) protested government inaction over extortion gangs trying to threaten them for money by closing their stores and organizing outside city hall. Extortionists decided to teach those owners a lesson that resulted in entire Celaya neighborhoods with no tortillerias or even carnicerias (where vast majorities of people buy tortillas and meat)

and owners afraid to speak to the press out of fear that their fates will mirror Virginia’s. My cousin Bárbara, mother of 10-year old Dani and owner of a local contracting firm, chose to return home early on her birthday due to danger on the streets. Entire neighborhoods in Celaya run devoid of people, not because nobody lives there but because leaving their homes could cost them their lives.

While Celaya represents a uniquely desperate case, the end of huachicoleo led to economic losses across the country as huachicoleros turn to increasingly exploitative measures. In August, a national drugstore association said criminal gangs announced that drugstores lost 750,000 dollars in sales the previous month and 1,000,000 in freight shipment robberies, as stores began finding it impossible to ship or supply medicine, health and beauty care items. AMLO’s decision to attack huachicoleo therefore cost Mexico’s economy dearly by unintentionally forcing shop closures.

Without tortillas, Mexicans lose the cornerstone of their cuisine. Without security, street vendors, and town squares, even local soccer games lose their flair, popularity and place in Mexican society. Workers cannot drive without gas, and without business Mexican consumerism plummets. López Obrador’s single policy represents MORENA’s impact on Mexican society and culture at large, which begs two main questions.

First, how much blame does MORENA deserve?

And second, should Mexicans feel optimistic about MORENA and AMLO? In response to the first question, my cousin Cristobal believes MORENA deserves all the blame. He and the conservative local PAN government take AMLO’s decisions at face value:

López Obrador cut oil, thereby naturally incentivizing former huachicoleros to find other creative means of exploitation and causing gasoline shortages across Mexico. Yet MORENA inherited disastrous policies from former presidents Felipe Calderón, who began Mexico’s war on drugs, and Enrique Peña Nieto, whose neoliberal policies raised gas prices sufficiently high to incentivize criminal groups to increase fuel theft.

AMLO therefore began his term with his back against the wall. PAN and PRI governments left him with no easy alternative; refuse to address huachicoleo and risk it worsening and suffering backlash—similarly, pursue a policy ending huachicoleo but not criminal violence and prompt further backlash. Also, extortionists began forcing businesses to close because the PAN-led government refused to acknowledge the owners’ protests. Though not innocent, AMLO does not deserve all guilt.

So, should Mexicans find comfort in MORENA? MORENA the political party so far failed to curb corruption or violence and passed policies leading to more violence damaging cornerstones to Mexican culture and identity. MORENA the social movement, however, changed Mexico’s political climate—like all Mexican political movements it cannot escape dirty politics, but it represents a message from ordinary Mexicans that they will no longer tolerate incompetence from their government.

Tortillas, gasoline, street vendors and liveliness in Mexico’s cities can all return; governmental irresponsibility demands national action.

Therefore, as the party wages the battle for Mexico’s soul against the movement, Mexicans face an uncertain, divisive but realistic hope that MORENA will foster change for the better. For now, though, the war wages on.

Christian Monzón ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at christian.monzon@wustl.edu.

Movement

The Culture of Protest in Latin America Salil Uttarwar, staff writer

C

hile has recently experienced rises in income inequality, cost of living, and privatization. In response to an increase in price for Santiago Metro tickets, a tipping point for many Chileans, civil protests began in Chile’s capital city and spread throughout the country.

The protests have been far from peaceful; many have been killed, hundreds have been injured, and thousands have been arrested. Train stations have been burnt down and looting is prevalent.

President Sebastian Piñera declared a state of emergency in the country and has implemented strict curfews. Many people did not anticipate the scale of the protests in Chile, as the country has been one of the most prosperous in Latin America, with the highest per capita GDP and HDI in the region. In fact, President Piñera even called Chile a “true oasis” among other chaos in the region. Despite this, protest is not foreign to Latin Americans. The culture of protest and rebellion has been rich throughout Latin American history and instrumental to change in the region.

European countries began colonizing the region starting during the late 1400s. For centuries, the governmental systems in place granted power to wealthy Europeans, who exploited the indigenous people for their land and labor. To combat the extensive exploitation, local populations began to protest and rebel. Starting with the Haitian revolution, which resulted in the end of French rule in 1804, populations around Latin America began to organize their own revolutions. Soon after, figures like Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín helped to liberate other countries such as Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador from Spain. These new countries, regardless of governmental structure, were rarely successful.

Groups of Creole elites maintained their power over the newborn nations after their independence from Spain. This resulted in the continuation of repressive structures that initially led to socioeconomic and political instability, often causing extensive civil wars. The cornerstone of Latin American political upheaval has been

citizens taking outspoken action to express anger at their government. As many of the Latin American countries and their current political structures were born from protest and rebellion, these forms of political discourse have become deeply embedded in the region’s culture.

that resulted in thousands of injuries. Protests in response to election fraud in Bolivia recently forced the resignation of President Evo Morales.

Common themes of animosity towards economic unreliability and a lack of trust in the government tie all of the conflicts together.

A 2010 study from Vanderbilt University used surveys and face-to-face interactions to determine that protest has been “normalized” in the region. The authors state that “in many Latin American countries, street protests and marches have come to play a crucial role in citizens’ efforts to influence government actions and policies.”

To emphasize this, the authors demonstrated that in Argentina and Bolivia, almost one-third of the people surveyed had participated in protest within a year of being interviewed, and countries such as Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela had rates of protest within a year in the high-teens. These percentages represent millions of people in each country protesting yearly, demonstrating how ingrained protest is to the Latin American way of life.

With rebellion so deeply embedded into the foundation of Latin American politics, it is likely that this method of political discourse will remain widespread throughout the often politically and economically unstable region for years to come. Although these protests demonstrate the enthusiasm of the populations to be involved in change, they may soon not be sustainable methods of discourse. Jair Bolsonaro’s son recently remarked that the Brazilian government could adopt dictator-like tactics to stop protests.

The protests in Ecuador were violently repressed

by President Lenín Moreno. Despite the dangers and threats, Latin American populations continue to demonstrate that they are willing to risk their lives by going to the streets to rebel.

The fact that protest has been normalized in Latin America not only means that Latin Americans are consistently willing to put themselves at risk to express their opinions, but also that there has consistently been discontent in the region. This ubiquitous subversion is not intrinsic in Latin Americans; it has resulted from frequent economic instability due to the strong legacy of colonialism in the region. Colonies in Latin America were set up with small groups of European elites profiting off of the work of peasants, resulting in deep inequalities and poverty that persist in the region despite political action intended to diminish them. This economic instability has directly led to distrust in governmental structures and political instability, which has subsequently resulted in a failure to implement economic policies that would stabilize the countries. Chile is among many Latin American countries with recent widespread protests. Ecuador had protests sparked by new economic policies

Salil Uttarwar ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at suttarwar@wustl. edu.

13

WU Political Review

14

Movement

The Privilege of Movement Nidhi Krishnan Artwork (left), "Longest Journey" by Natalie Snyder, staff artist

W

hen I used to think of movement in the past, I thought of relaxing vacations and groovy hip-hop mixes. Now, I think of movement as a manifestation of privilege because of its inaccessibility. Whether it be moving from the city to the suburbs or immigrating to a different country, our ability to move depends largely on power dynamics.

We need look no further than St. Louis for an explanation of this phenomenon. After World War II, the government started to offer low-interest mortgages for those who sought to build houses in the suburbs. While this program helped many individuals move to the suburbs, it came at the expense of racial equity as these loans were only offered to whites. As a result, St. Louis emptied out. A bustling metropolis turned to a hallowing city full of abandoned homes and businesses as former city dwellers flocked to the suburbs. This white flight had massive implications on the city, and the effects still linger today.

Overall, white residents left the city because of their privilege while black residents were confined because of their lack thereof.

White flight and suburbanization are not unique to St. Louis; these power dynamics are ever-present in many other post-industrial cities. In this case, movement matters because of the quality of life that follows. St. Louis County has a significantly higher tax base than St. Louis City, which translates to better public schools, recreational parks, and employment opportunities. People don’t just move to the suburbs for

White residents left the city because of their privilege while black residents were confined because of their lack thereof.

When those with privilege move out of developing countries, they attain better life prospects at the expense of those left behind. the heck of it; they move because of the associated life outcomes. At the end of the day, those with privilege can buy themselves better quality lives by moving to the suburbs.

On an international scale, we see the same phenomenon. This type of movement is not known as white flight but as brain drain. When those with privilege move out of developing countries, they attain better life prospects at the expense of those left behind. According to the New York Times, Haiti looses about 85% of its educated youth to immigration. South Sudan similarly struggles to maintain a high quality of life for citizens in the midst of skilled workers leaving the country. Thus, it makes sense that developing countries continue to lag behind. When developing countries lose significant portions of their educated workforce, they have little opportunity to strengthen their economies and political institutions. Merit-based immigration may help those with the means and power to move to developed countries, but it condemns the rest of the population to a lower quality of life.

On the planetary level, I fear that this same result holds true. The U.N. tells us that we have 12 years to take meaningful action to address climate change. Despite this warning, powerful individuals don’t seem concerned about our planet’s fate. Why should they be? If Earth

grows to be inhabitable, they can always buy into Elon Musk’s space force idea. They can use their money to purchase the ultimate commodity: life, which will take the form of a rocket ship ride to Mars. While those in positions of power can buy themselves a lifeboat—or in this case, a rocket ship—those left behind will suffer the ultimate consequences because of their inability to move.

Time and time again, our ability to move is indicative of our privilege. We see this on the local, international, and planetary level through white flight, brain drain, and the space force. As we think about this important phenomenon, my hope is that we also think about the barriers to movement. Though technology and globalization may lead to great strides, we must step back and take a look at the unequal distribution of benefits. Greater movement for select individuals comes at the expense of the quality of life of others and often exacerbates existing inequalities.

These considerations pose a dire question: should movement be restricted? Should we bar those with privilege from fleeing inner cities in search of suburbs because their movement will hurt those left behind? Should we restrict hopeful immigrants from relocating to wealthier countries because we know that their movement will hinder the economic capacity of their country of origin? Should we do away with the concept of the space force so that rich people cannot commodify life when Earth becomes inhabitable? Should we put limits on movement in order to benefit entire communities? These questions are not of facts and data but of competing morals and values. Ultimately, we must choose what we value more—the individual liberty of a few or the quality of life of many.

Nidhi Krishnan ’23 studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at nidhi@wustl.edu.

15

Andrew Leung, staff writer Artwork by Jinny Park, assistant design director

n August 26th, 2016, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo emerged from a green pipe donning Nintendo’s Mario costume, signaling the closing of the Rio Olympics and a glimpse into Tokyo 2020. Viewers were amazed at the technological advancements and cultural heritage that Japan would present under the global spotlight, and for the most part, the world was confident they could make it a reality four years later.

This sentiment was a sharp contrast to the opinion of Brazil’s preparation for the Olympics, as concerns were raised from even before they won the bid. As Rio prepared for one of the most watched international events in modern history, new reports headlined “Rio preparations deemed ‘the worst’ by International Olympics Committee” or “Rio sees surge in police killings” plagued the media coverage. Even after the closing ceremony, media outlets continued to analyze how stadiums were abandoned, police killings continued to increase in frequency, and the quality of life for residents did not improve. The news had really put a damper on the first Olympic games hosted in South America. For reference, of the thirty-one summer games hosted so far, five came from nations without a majority-white population.

It is important to remember that hosting the Olympic games is an immensely complicated undertaking, and the obstacles Brazil faced

adds to how impressive the end result was: a renowned international competition.

As the Olympic games move across the world, a torch of innovation is carried that sparks advancements that drive businesses, increase tourism, and reinvigorate the city.

Take the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, which allowed the coastal city to shed its politicallyembroiled past and transform into the vibrant tourist destination we know it as today.

However, many cities cannot escape the so-called “Olympics curse,” an effect of building massive infrastructure that have little purpose outside of the event. Many stadiums and athlete villages built in the central location can be remodeled and integrated into the city postOlympics, but those built in satellite locations are often abandoned. There are pictures of abandoned stadiums from Beijing and Athens, which only had their games hosted 11 and 15 years ago respectively. At least Lake Placid, home of the 1980 Winter Olympics, found use of their old athletic villages. The fact that they were converted into federal prisons sounds exactly like what the U.S. government would do.

Tokyo is looking to avoid these single-use facilities by repurposing many of its alreadybuilt sports complexes in addition to building new ones, choosing a cost-effective and

Speaking of devotion, there was a point where critics speculated how citizens would feel about the increased tourism and traffic surrounding the games, which will cause disruptions to workers and students (Japan’s academic year extends through July). This concern was squashed as the people of Japan have shown their enthusiasm for the upcoming games, exceeding previous estimates of volunteers for the games with a total of 200,000 applicants.

environmentally-conscious approach to the 2020 games. In terms of public transportation, the vast network of metro lines, bullet trains, and buses is already one of the best systems in the world. When Japan announced that their medals would be made from recycled metals, people were not surprised by Japan’s ingenuity, but impressed, nevertheless. While the estimated cost of hosting the games has risen to $25 billion due to higher-thanexpected expenses, the investment into the area looks promising to both Abe’s government and to international citizens ready to visit.

Of course, the road to the Olympic games for Tokyo has not been completely flawless. Due to the increasing impact of climate change, Tokyo 2020 is projected to be the hottest Olympics on record, leading to the relocation of certain events and increased spending on maintaining suitable conditions for athletes and tourists.

Tensions between South Korea and Japan have surfaced over issues like the use of the Rising Sun flag as well as the escalating trade war, a reminder that Japan’s past actions in World War II have not been forgotten, especially by nations like South Korea and China. In addition, the cost-reduction in reaction to fears of overbudget spending have started to eat away at the image of full devotion to hosting the games.

For most of us, when we envision Tokyo hosting the summer games, we assume their current innovation can carry the infrastructure to the finish line without a hitch. Roughly fifty years ago, post-war Japan lacked much of the infrastructure needed to host the 1964 Olympics, but they proved the speed of their modernization on the global stage. The nation faced more pressure from its past than it does today, and they were able to move past that and transform their image into one of creativity and peace. Transforming from a city without accessible public toilets to one successfully operating the fastest train in the world, Tokyo amazed the world in 1964 and looks to do so again in 2020. If that means bringing back Prime Minister Abe dressed as Mario, then they are already moving in the right direction.

Andrew Leung '22 studies in the college of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at andrew.leung@wustl. edu.

WU Political Review

WashUber Sophie Attie, editor-in-chief

M

y seventh alarm goes off at 8:35 a.m. on a crisp Monday morning in October.

I savor every last minute of sleep I can get before heading to my 9 a.m. class on the furthest end of campus. Barely awake, I check the clock again after sluggishly getting dressed. It’s 8:50 a.m. Crap. In my sleepy state, I reason that it is too cold outside to walk and call an Uber.

The car is five minutes away. It’s a five-minute ride. Six bucks for a cozy delivery to a class I was dreading attending anyways? Worth it. I hop in, no regrets. My Uber driver asks me how my morning is going. “Great!” I respond sheepishly, as I begin to feel guilty for calling an Uber for such an unnecessary occasion. Funnily enough, my Uber driver begins to talk about how he has been avoiding the Wash U area lately since so many students call Ubers for stupidly short rides. I guiltily laugh and apologize for being part of that pool of students. He laughs and says he understands; it’s early and it is a considerable walking distance. I feel better on the surface, but still something nags at me. Why do so many people call unnecessary Ubers to go such short distances?

Wash U is a go-to spot for Ubers in St. Louis.

With such a concentrated area of young people always going places, most of whom don’t have cars, the convenient app that hails you a car in under ten seconds has become a predominant mode of transportation for students. Some Uber drivers welcome this population, installing karaoke sets in their cars to cater students going out on the weekends, providing free beers to young partiers, or handing out condoms to this especially active population—yes, I have seen all of these amenities in Ubers. Some, however,

Why do so many people call unnecessary Ubers to go such short distances?

18

My Uber driver on that Monday morning wasn’t the first to tell me of the sometimes intolerable Wash U environment for Uber drivers. actively avoid the Wash U bubble. My Uber driver on that Monday morning wasn’t the first to tell me of the sometimes intolerable Wash U environment for Uber drivers. Some avoid it because they refuse to drive around loud college kids going out—who also might end up throwing up on their car—but quite a few have voiced their annoyance with students using Uber to get around campus or the extended “Wash U bubble,” which leads to shorter rides and low payments.

The controversy surrounding short rides is not unique to the Wash U community. UberPeople. net, a popular forum for Uber and similar apps to post tips, comments, and concerns, has entire threads discussing short trips. One thread titled “Short Trips & Tips” features multiple posts from drivers saying it should be common courtesy to tip drivers who accept short fairs. Trips averaging five minutes at normal rates can earn drivers as little as $3.00, which is not worth the time and effort put in by Uber drivers. This number looks especially ridiculous once one accounts for the time it takes drivers to reach pick-up locations, which can take up to twenty minutes. At four times the actual trip distance, these trips can end up being rendered utterly worthless for drivers. In St. Louis, this is a prevalent issue for drivers who get trapped in the Wash U area, leading to multiple short trips with students moving around campus.

minimum fare supplements for drivers who earn less than the guaranteed amount, given that they meet certain requirements—such as acceptance rate and number of trips per hour. However, drivers who do not meet these requirements may end up with the bare minimum. Uber has no restrictions on trip lengths, giving little leeway to drivers trying to maximize their profits.

This is not to say that you should feel ashamed for calling Ubers to go short distances. Short trips are common and sometimes welcomed. When it’s late at night and you don’t feel safe walking, Uber is an easy, safer alternative. When you’re tired, running late to class, and it’s cold outside, Uber can be a quick last resort (guilty). Even for drivers, these trips can be appreciated. When business is slow, short trips might be all drivers can get. Three dollars is better than nothing.

Perhaps this is why Uber as a company accepts all fares. It is meant to make transportation easier for all people in all situations, no matter how short their ride length is. I simply urge Uber users, myself included, to think before ordering these quick trips. Do I really need an Uber to go from the clocktower to the Psychology building?

In some cases, the answer might be yes. But when you can just as easily walk the distance, why not save yourself and your potential Uber driver from a waste of time and money?

Sophie Attie ‘20 studies in the College of Arts &

Uber does guarantee an hourly rate, providing

Science. She can be reached at sattie@wustl.edu.

Movement

Artwork by Arushee Agrawal, staff artist

19

WU Political Review

Capoeira: A Movement Beyond that of Dance Aruni Soni Artwork (right) by Merry May Ma

M

ost of us, though we may not like to admit it, like to boogie a little now and then, unless perhaps we are inherently powerless in the face of rhythm. Now wonder with me: can it be that this little shimmying and boogieing called ‘dance’ plays an intrinsic part in a movement speaking not only to swaying our limbs, but to resistance, hope, and empowerment? It would probably take more than a hip-shake to create a wave of political uprising, and that is precisely what the martial dance capoeira—from the lands of Bahia—has done.

Exponentially more than a shake of a hip, the Brazilian dance-fighting game once provided an escape for West African slaves and has evolved to combat racism and unleash a long kindling fury.

There follows an enigmatic history with this dance, as does with anything so powerfully rebellious. Travel back to sixteenth century Brazil, when Portuguese colonists arrived, lavishly dressed, in ships with thousands of West African slaves aboard. Unbeknownst to slaveowners, along with them traveled a rich culture that would supply the tools for the birth of capoeira. Shackled to a foreign country and ruled by strangers, the African slaves were forbidden from practicing self-defense (god forbid they muster the power to revolt for freedom). It is from these very ropes of restriction that capoeira blossomed into existence.

Masquerading as a dance, the slaves practiced martial arts through capoeira, cheating the laws imposed upon them. Ultimately, they cleverly wielded this clandestine power to escape and rebel in groups called quilimbos outside of Portuguese control. As the slave population grew, so did their cultural prominence, and the harder it became for authorities to control it.

Capoeira burgeoned into a movement seemingly impossible to destroy. But where along this turbulent history did the once-surreptitious street game, with its rather violent boogieing,

20

Capoeira was not just a creative outlet, but a necessity, a voice. become a traditional dance form?

Nineteenth century Brazil saw a population explosion due to urbanization, and inevitably an eruption of crime. The dance-fight capoeira, laden with aggressive moves, served as an ideal weapon for unlawful activity and was soon rampant among gangs and criminals. As these deceptive dancers continued to raid the cities, a nationwide ban of capoeira duly followed in 1890.

A critical moment in the history of capoeira, the criminalization of capoeira tested its strength to persist through time. The survival of the dance is often traced back to Mestre Bimba, who revolutionized capoeira’s reputation. Opening the first capoeira dance school, Mestre Bimba mandated a no-nonsense policy and raised his standards to establish it as a sophisticated practice. Soon enough, upper-class Brazilians could no longer stick their noses in the air without escaping a whiff of capoeira.

On September 24 2019, Wash U had its very own demonstration of Afro-Brazillian music and dance by Mestre Claudio, a known figure in the capoeira community from Bahia, facilitated by our ethnomusicology professor Dr. Kurtz. In his lecture, Mestre Claudio said that though he never received a formal education, this art form gave him more than he would have ever attained elsewhere. To him, capoeira was not just a creative outlet, but a necessity, a voice. The dance has evidently played a critical role of representation in Afro-Brazillian politics. Mestre Claudio firmly believed that no one who engaged in the practice of capoeira could harbor racist prejudices. Certain conversations arise regarding

cultural appropriation displayed by the practice of capoeira by non-Blacks in the Brazilian society—and sentiments about the purpose of the martial dance are conflicting—but the dance’s political significance is undeniable.

Capoeira is more than a recreational activity; rather, it is a movement that weaves together a story narrating issues ranging from socioeconomic status to racism in our society. Under Brazil’s current president, Jair Bolsonaro, the struggle has only worsened. Just as of 2018, eminent master of capoeira, Moa do Katendê, was murdered in Bolsonaro’s name. Bolsonaro’s extremism fails to align with the egalitarian attitudes capoeira represents.

Nevertheless, with a history running deep in racism, and in a far from perfect world, capoeira remains a politically powerful movement in Brazil. I find a sublime beauty in the power of art to advocate social justice. This dance has provided more than a facet to the Brazilian culture; it has fostered a sense of community. The capoeiristas of Brazil have taken on a national challenge in their stride and are using their bodies to fight for change.

To me, that’s pretty darn cool.

Continuing a dance fight that began many moons ago, practitioners are still fighting for equality, still dancing in the name of justice.

Having withstood the test of time, the test of prohibition, capoeira seems to have cemented itself into the fabric of the Brazilian society—and having succeeded in spurring a transformation once before, there’s no saying it can’t be done again.

Aruni Soni, ‘23 studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be reached at aruni.soni@wustl. edu.

Movement

21

WU Political Review

Artwork by Merry May Ma

22

Movement

Political Movement Grethe Andersen Artwork by Elizabeth Phelan

M

oving can be a hassle. As someone who has gone through the process many times, I can certainly attest to the fact that having to deep clean, carefully pack, and unpack everything you own is a certifiable headache. And the work doesn’t end when the literal heavy-lifting does; you then have to get settled in a new neighborhood, new school, new job, or new country. Based on my experience, I always associated moving with work-related obligations and had never given much thought as to why people might actually choose to move.

And, until I heard of Conservative Move, a moving company specifically for Conservatives, I would have never thought of a direct relationship between moving and political alignment.

I had known that there was a correlation between political affiliation and living area; according to data from the Pew Research Center, 77% of people who categorize themselves as “consistently liberal” favor more urban areas while 75% of “consistently conservative” people prefer to live in more rural areas. This phenomenon has been labelled by American author Bill Bishop as the Big Sort, named for the manner in which these preferences lead to Americans sorting themselves into districts of like-minded people. The Big Sort has already affected American politics because of the way America’s voting system is structured. The House of Representatives and a majority of state and local legislatures are elected through a single-member district voting system based on plurality, which results in Democrats winning by a larger margin in fewer, urban districts while Republicans are able to win, albeit by a smaller margin, in a larger number of rural districts. I had previously viewed the Big Sort, and the resulting electoral trends, as a result of subconscious decision making; after all, there are a number of other differences that have been noted by research groups, such as the apparent Republican preference for Sam’s Club versus the Democratic preference for Trader Joe’s that was noted by the Simmons Research Group.

However, the Big Sort may not be quite so subconscious. A 2014 poll by the Pew Research

Center found that 50% of people who label themselves as “consistently conservative” and 35% of people who view themselves as “consistently liberal” stated that they found it very important that they live around people who hold similar political views. Paul Chabot, the founder of Conservative Move, is undoubtedly one of those people. Chabot decided to move or, as he put it, “escape” from California to Texas after a failed run for Congress reinforced his belief that he did not belong in California. After settling in nicely in Texas, Chabot had a feeling that other Conservatives would want to make a similar move, prompting him to found Conservative Move, which, according to its catchy slogan, is “helping families move Right.” Since its creation in 2017, Conservative Move has expanded and now has over 250 agents working across America to help clients sell their homes in blue states and buy new property in red states. Yet Conservative Move’s services go beyond just real estate; their website also states that they offer job and relocation advice as well as introductions to local Conservative groups.

While some may see Chabot’s company as a smart way to capitalize on an already present trend, I believe his company is part of a dangerous positive feedback loop. Conservative Move utilizes the polarization that is tearing our country apart to advertise their services, which in turn exacerbates the creation of politically insular communities. To see this in action, all

one has to do is visit Conservative Move’s website. Above their logo, which is a house made of stars and stripes, is a tagline stating that “liberal states are a mess,” urging the reader to “let [Conservative Move] help you move to a red state.” Underneath the logo is a Bible verse, specifically Proverbs 22:3: The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty. What exactly is the danger? Democrats? Liberalism? AOC? And what refuge is a politically homogenous community providing in a country meant to be based upon pluralism?

It is critical to remember that Conservative Move didn’t create this problem of politically homogeneous districts; the company is merely capitalizing off of a long-term trend in political movement. But can this issue be fixed? Short of completely restructuring America’s voting system into one based on proportional representation, there is no quick fix. However, at the individual level, we can act. We need to be more aware of how we react to challenges to our political views, and we need to resist the temptation to surround ourselves with people who only confirm our ideas instead of people who can challenge them. Movement towards political isolation is not the answer.

Grethe Andersen ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at grethe.andersen@ wustl.edu.

23

WU Political Review

Artwork by Reshad Hamauon, staff artist

24

National

Universities Profiting Off of Black Bodies Clare Grindinger, staff writer

R

ecently, my friend called me to tell me that he just got a job offer that was so good, he couldn’t refuse. An offer he couldn’t refuse, that scared me a little. I feel like a year from now, he will be complaining, wanting to quit his job, feeling overworked and like the money isn’t worth it. When most students are applying for college, they are looking for the best school they can get into, but also the money they can get from the school to cut tuition fees.

Similarly, a lot of high school athletes try to stick with their sport and get recruited to play for a college because of the tuition cut, or free ride, to a great school.

My dad was that kind of student. He came from a low-income family, in which neither of his parents were formally educated, and they had a family of six to care for. Needless to say, a college education was not a priority and it definitely would not come with any financial assistance from his parents. Luckily, he played football in high school and ended up getting a full ride to Notre Dame on a football scholarship.

To this day, he always stresses how lucky he was to get this free education in exchange for his labor. I grew up with the idea that college athletes get enough—they get an education. I remember arguing with a substitute teacher, who happened to be an assistant football coach, in my seventh-grade history class that college athletes shouldn’t be paid, because they already

A lot of Division I athletes have the “athlete” part of their title prioritized over “student.”

With this experience, the athletes are stripped of an equal academic experience to other students. are through their tuition.

I was naïvely projecting my assumption of their college experience to equate it with the gain they get from this type of deal, free tuition. A lot of Division I athletes, however, have the “athlete” part of their title prioritized over “student.”

I have met a number of students who are told to focus on practices, games, diets, and sleep.

Additionally, there is the hope that professors will help them glide through their classes to ensure that they remain academically eligible to play on the field or court every Friday night.

With this experience, the athletes are stripped of an equal academic experience to other students.

While some students spend their Monday afternoons studying hours for a Tuesday test, these athletes are at practice. When job offers come through, athletes are at a disadvantage, their transcript not reflecting a similar quality to students who simply had more time on their hands.

In basketball, only 1.1% of student athletes go professional, so this dominant college experience of sports is not reflective and does not help professionally prepare them for future careers.

This is the only opportunity they have to profit from this hard work.

Additionally, not paying college athletes is giving a slight to history. A lot of college athletes are students of color. On the football field, these students are making a lot of money for their university. Their school is not only making money

from their athletic performance but also from selling their name on the back of a jersey in the university bookstore. The coaches and university administration, who are usually white men, are profiting off of black bodies. A common practice in American history, black laborers are not given just and equal profit for their time, seen through slavery and prison labor.

This fall, California is making historic change on this issue of paying their college athletes. After the bill was unanimously passed through the senate, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act that would allow athletes to hire agents and create endorsement deals come 2023. Now, students can make money by promoting companies and brands, including their own name. Many universities, like Stanford, University of California and University of Southern California, argued against this bill because they assume that this bill challenges the over $100 million that the University pulls in each year from their athletes. However, this will not necessarily cost the universities. The athletes will simply be making money alongside the University.

While a bill like this is great, it still reinforces inequalities. Male athletes are more likely to get endorsement deals than their female counterparts. However, it is still a change in the right direction. In an industry that generates at least $14 billion, it seems absurd that athletes remain separate from the profits of their bodies. While it will be a struggle to work against these moneydriven university administrations to expand this legislation across the country, California has shown that this kind of equity and justice is possible. This industry does not exist without the bodies used to build them. It is time the people responsible for this flow of money finally profit from their labor.

Clare Grindinger ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cgrindinger@wustl. edu.

25

WU Political Review race to the whitehouse:

2020 Election: The Online Battlefield Rachel Olick-Gibson, staff writer

In the WUPR issues leading up to the Democratic nomination, Rachel will be writing a monthly column presenting new angles on the candidates for the 2020 presidential race.

I

n mid-October, an ad ran on Facebook falsely accusing former Vice President and presidential primary candidate Joe Biden of blackmailing Ukrainian officials by withholding U.S. aid to prevent an investigation of his son Hunter. Although President Trump’s reelection campaign did not pay for the ad, a super PAC called “Committee to Defend the President” did. This ad accused Biden of withholding aid from Ukraine to elicit personal favors from the Ukrainian government, a crime actually committed by Trump and currently being investigated in an impeachment inquiry. In one version of the video, a narrator proclaims, “Send Quid Pro Joe Biden into retirement,” mirroring the language surrounding Trump’s potential quid quo pro in the impeachment inquiry. The ad attempted both to warp the public’s understanding of the impeachment investigation and harm Biden’s public image. Facebook allowed this ad containing false information to run on its platform in violation of its policies on misinformation.

The Biden campaign rebuked the ad in a letter to Facebook, attacking the company’s inaction in enforcing its policies. In the letter, the campaign acknowledged Facebook’s policy of allowing political leaders’ speeches and ads to remain up, as they are considered “inherently newsworthy.”

However, as this ad was paid for by a super PAC rather than a politician, the letter argued that it violated Facebook’s policies. In the letter, Biden’s campaign manager Greg Schultz stated, “This is the most basic test. The ad contains transparently false allegations, prominently debunked by every major media outlet in the country.”

This latest dispute concerning a social media platform’s content moderation policy comes amidst a broader debate surrounding the proper role of social media in our political discourse.

This debate has played out in disputes about the spread of disinformation as well as in presidential debates concerning the proper role of Big Tech in the American marketplace. In light

26

This latest dispute between Biden and Facebook comes in the midst of a broader debate surrounding the proper role of social media our political tradition. of the Kremlin’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by spreading false ads about Hillary Clinton to support her rival, both politicians and the public have carefully monitored online platforms’ implementation of their content moderation policies. Over the last few years, the heads of major social media companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter, have been called to testify in congressional hearings to articulate their policies. Members of Congress have raised concerns not only about the role of misinformation in influencing voters but also about the spread of terrorist content and hate speech. Congress has also sought to ensure that political biases do not affect these companies’ filtration processes. These concerns call into question how the First Amendment of the Constitution applies to social media platforms. These platforms are privately owned companies through which millions of users publish content, meaning that they are not legally required to adhere to First Amendment standards of free speech. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) empowers owners of online platforms to remove content that they deem inappropriate but does not

require these platforms to adhere to neutrality nor to protect the First Amendment Rights of their users. However, founder and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg views his company as a platform designed to give people a voice.

Zuckerberg has designed his content moderation policies around this fundamental belief that, while Facebook is not legally required to protect its users’ First Amendment rights, it has a responsibility to do so.

However, even within the highly-contested policies that online platforms have laid out, their implementation of these policies is often inaccurate and inconsistent. Several of these companies utilize a combination of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and human monitors to identify inappropriate and illegal content as well as misinformation. In the case of the super PAC’s ad attacking Biden, Facebook failed to remove it.

Six versions of this ad targeted Facebook users in South Carolina, Iowa and Massachusetts, according to Facebook’s ad library. The first four primary elections will occur in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada. This super PAC likely targeted voters in Iowa and South Carolina due to the proximity of those elections. Furthermore, many New Hampshire residents work in Boston and, therefore, have IP addresses in Massachusetts, potentially explaining the super PAC’s attempt to target Massachusetts. The ad was viewed by over 4 million people, largely in the targeted states.

Facebook’s failure to enforce its own policy may have significant implications for Biden’s results in the upcoming primaries.

Democratic primary candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren attacked Facebook not only for its failure to enforce its policies but also for the policies themselves. Before the super PAC released its ad, the Trump campaign also created ads with similarly false accusations against Biden. When the Biden-attack ad was released, Biden’s campaign

National

The potential implications of candidates’ social media use on the outcome of the Presidential election highlight the growing role of social media in transmitting information and swaying public opinion. asked Facebook to take it down. However, as it came from a political leader, the ad remained in alignment with Facebook’s policies. Warren, one of the biggest critics of tech giants like Facebook, subsequently bought a political ad on Facebook that deliberately included false information about both Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. The ad stated that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg are supporting President Trump’s reelection, even though Zuckerberg has not announced his support of any candidate. The ad was not removed, as the spread of false information by politicians and public leaders is protected

by Facebook’s content moderation policies.

Warren used the ad to call attention not only to Facebook’s policy but also to her attempts to combat Big Tech. At the end of the ad, Warren states, “You’re probably shocked, and you might be thinking, ‘how could this possibly be true?’

Well, it’s not.” After the ad’s release, Warren tweeted, “Facebook changed their ads policy to allow politicians to run ads with known lies— explicitly turning the platform into a disinformation-for-profit machine. This week, we decided to see just how far it goes.”

towards acquiring new donors and supporters.

Second, campaigns will use ads to persuade undecided voters. Finally, ads will be targeted at getting supporters out to vote on election day. As primary candidates are largely still in the first phase of this advertising process, their media efforts have generally focused on appealing to their bases. A digital strategist at a media consulting firm based in D.C. that currently represents one of the candidates explained that online platforms generally serve as the most efficient way that candidates can add to their email lists and acquire donations. Furthermore, platforms allow ad buyers to target individual users based on demographics and demonstrated interest in political issues. For example, Facebook allows the advertiser to layer in age, party-affiliation, region, behaviors, and interests.

Facebook identifies these qualities about its users based on their online engagement and targets users with this information. As the owner of Instagram, Facebook also controls the ads politicians can purchase on this platform and allows campaigns to choose which platform and format they prefer.

However, although Warren and several other Democratic candidates have argued that tech giants pose a significant risk to both capitalist competition and to our privacy, presidential candidates are expected to spend more money on social media than any others since the invention of the Internet. In 2016, Clinton and Trump spent a total of $81 million on Facebook ads.

Candidates this election cycle have already spent more than $63 million with a year left before the general election. Despite their criticism of Big Tech, candidates’ spending on online advertising demonstrates the fact that these platforms are an unprecedented tool for communicating with voters.

While the four top-polling primary candidates have all spent significant sums on Facebook ads, the audiences that candidates target with these ads differ as each attempts to garner donations from their bases. While Biden’s campaign has overwhelmingly targeted users born after 1975, Senator Bernie Sanders’ ads are more than twice as likely to be seen by users born after 1975 than before. Sanders has spent nearly half a million dollars on users born since 1995, while Biden has spent less than $12,000 on the same age group.

This sum represents less than 1% of Biden’s overall Facebook ad spending. The campaigns’ spending also demonstrates a significant gender divide. Biden, who is generally more popular with women has spent nearly two-thirds of his overall Facebook budget on ads targeting women, while Sanders has spent approximately 50%

There are three basic phases of online advertising in political campaigns. First, ads are targeted

of his spending on males and 50% on females.

Nearly 55% of Biden’s Facebook ad budget has solely been devoted to women who are 45 years or older. These spending patterns reflect the composition of each candidates’ base as each seeks to procure donations, as Biden is most popular with middle-aged women and Sanders with young men. Meanwhile, both Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaigns have targeted voters with demographics reflective of the makeup of predicted primary voters: slightly more women than men and a slightly older age group. Democratic candidates have also collectively spent the most advertising money targeting voters in the first four primary states.

However, while Democratic primary candidates are investing nearly all of their funding and efforts into advertisements targeting voters for the primary, President Trump has already begun advertising for the general election by targeting swing states. In September, the Trump campaign spent more than $700,000 on Facebook ads just in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida. The President won each of these states by narrow margins in 2016, and they will be decisive in determining the outcome of the general election. This geographic difference in ad spending may leave the Democrats at a disadvantage in the general election.

The potential implications of candidates’ social media use on the outcome of the Presidential election highlight the growing role of social media in transmitting information and swaying public opinion. Social media’s influence on both the outcome of the Presidential election and how we interpret our Constitution highlights social media’s potential to fundamentally alter the structure of our political system.

Rachel Olick-Gibson ’21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at rachel.olick-gibson@wustl.edu.

27

WU Political Review

Covering Earth In The 21st Century Ishaan Shah, executive director Artwork (right) by Avni Joshi, staff artist

O

n thethirdpole.net, interested readers can find in-depth discussion and multilingual coverage of the Himalayan Valley watershed. This watershed provides fresh water to nearly 1.3 billion people, and the website highlights local political challenges that South Asian countries face regarding the collective management of this precious natural resource alongside detailed, interactive maps that show the distribution of infrastructure and natural landmarks around the eight countries bordering the Hindu Kush Himalayas. InfoAmazonia covers the endangered Amazon region through a network of organizations, citizens, and professional journalists from nine countries. The site also aggregates maps and datasets from open-source research and provides the data behind its stories to the public. InfoAmazonia encourages citizen participation and encourages contributions from readers on the front lines of the forest. On Africa’s first investigative environmental journalism platform, Oxpeckers, readers can explore MineAlert which geolocates the distribution of mining and water use licenses across Southern Africa. Using Oxpeckers’ PoachTracker, citizens can track the distribution of rhino deaths since 2010. Oxpeckers has a robust whistleblower’s guide with detailed instructions for sending an encrypted email to the nonprofit or through their partner afriLEAKS. Mongabay is a multinational environmental journalism web site that publishes in nine different languages and has bureaus stationed in India, Latin America, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka, but accepts submissions from freelance journalists around the world. These outlets are not the New York Times.

They are not the Washington Post. They are not even National Geographic. At the same time, these 21st century environmental journalism

Some have described his website as “the most depressing place on the internet.”

28

News outlets that are exclusively covering climate and the environment transnationally are ushering in a new era of global governance, one which co-opts regular people as citizen watchdogs and covers environmental issues across national borders. outlets are creating a new ethic around climate and environmental coverage, one which puts the everyday “Earth citizen” at the center of environmental reporting and advocacy.

In a panel organized by the Center for Environmental Journalism at CU Boulder, Mongabay CEO and founder Rhett Butler has said that some have described his website as “the most depressing place on the internet.” A sampling of recent headlines on Mongabay include “Makers of Oreos, KitKats among brands linked to Indonesia forest fires” and “Coke is again the biggest culprit behind plastic waste in the Philippines.” An article from November 8 on The Third Pole is titled “Climate refugees stripped of citizenship in Assam.” A recent article in the Mekong Eye, a journalistic platform for discussion of the Mekong area’s environment and development, discussed how saltwater intrusion

in Myanmar is causing farmers to uproot their farms and move to higher land due to saltwater contamination of freshwater underground aquifers. The news found on these transnational, open-access, data-driven and hyperlocal environmental journalism-focused outlets is not pretty. It often shows the visceral details of transnational power grabs, which compromise the land of indigenous people, their livelihoods, and the environment overall. At the same time, these news outlets that are exclusively covering climate and the environment transnationally are ushering in a new era of global governance, one which co-opts regular people as citizen watchdogs and covers environmental issues across national borders.

In "Shifting Roles of Science Journalists Covering Climate Change," Brüggemann argues that there are two types of climate journalists: journalists who cover climate change issues intermittently as beat reporters and journalists who focus on the topic exclusively and direct regional coverage. Mongobay and other outlets like it demonstrate that publications themselves are starting to separate according to this distinction given the difficulty traditional news outlets have covering environmental news. Environmental hotspots such as the Indus Valley region, the Amazon rainforest, and the tropical Andes cross national borders, but news outlets are often confined by country, city, or state. Transnational environmental journalism networks are therefore better-tailored to cover the environmental hotspots. They also represent the perspectives of indigenous people who may not be represented under current state and municipal divisions. While traditional media outlets are making an effort to feature climate change and environmental issues in their regular coverage, efforts are often transient and sustained coverage is difficult. While the Covering Climate Now (CCN) initiative coordinated by the Columbia Journalism Review brought hundreds of newsrooms together to cover the environment and reached over a billion people, this spike was not sustained beyond the week it was planned for.

Covering climate and the environment requires a continuous, unique form of vigilance which goes

International

Transnational environmental journalism networks are better-tailored to cover the environmental hotspots themselves and also represent the perspectives of indigenous people who may not be represented adequately under current state and municipal divisions. beyond specific climate events, and even coordinated “climate pushes” like the CCN may not be providing useful environmental journalism.

Today’s newest environmental journalism platforms are demonstrating that they are up for the task. Many are cleaning up and hosting public datasets of the regions that they cover. They are licensing their material under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND international license which allows other publications to republish their work at no cost. Others are developing and publishing educational tools and workshops to help existing climate journalists become familiar with an issue that they have never covered.

Some publications work with translators to ensure articles are available in many languages.

Mongobay created an open-access academic journal and prepared material for elementary school classrooms to learn about the environment. Clearly these new outlets are not only providing more continuous coverage but also creating a new journalistic ethic that emphasizes global citizenship and creates opportunities for disseminating environmental awareness in novel ways. We should be elevating and highlighting their coverage in our own environmental advocacy rather than depending on traditional news outlets.

Ishaan Shah ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ishaanshah@wustl. edu.

29

WU Political Review

Assad Remains in Power, Kurds Betrayed Clare Grindinger, staff writer

W

hen I was abroad in Jordan this past academic year, I stayed with a host family. My host mom, a Syrian Christian from the north, supported the al-Assad regime. The Syrian Assistant Director of my program, conversely, did not support the regime.

There was a portrait of al-Assad in our home, and when the assistant director came over, he later disclosed the portrait made him very uncomfortable. The regime has put the safety of his family at risk and forced him to leave the country he called home. With the new developments in the Syrian civil war, this place my director called home, just two hours from where I lived, is going to change radically in the near future.

A lot has happened to Syria in the past few months. First, President Trump removed American troops from Syria and then announced the death of Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS who was killed by a U.S. raid. Since then, Russia, Turkey and the al-Assad regime have gained new power in the now eight-year-long Syrian civil war. The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led Syrian militia with ties to the Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), have lost ground fighting against ISIS and the al-Assad government but maintained control over northeastern Syria, the territory that borders Turkey. Meanwhile, the government's pro-Assad forces had control over the rest of the country.

On October 6, President Erdogan of Turkey told President Trump that Turkish troops would soon invade Syria. Three days later, Trump announced he would withdraw troops. It seems a little strange that Trump suddenly decided to change a major, long-term military policy to align with a foreign leader whose interests oppose America’s interests. Erdogan’s invasion of Syria is in alliance with Russia’s established power in Syria, which goes directly against America’s historical foreign policy. America first entered the Syrian war as a continuation of the Cold War’s

30

There was a portrait of al-Assad in our home. proxy wars to stop any potential control Russia may have in Syria. That was under President Obama, but Trump has a cozier relationship with President Putin of Russia than previous regimes, so it is not shocking that the anti-Russian narrative is beginning to fade.

The withdrawal of American troops created the power vacuum Turkey needed to increase its control in the region. Through this control, Turkey eventually split Kurdish territory. The Kurdish people who were previously supported by the U.S. were left vulnerable to this destruction. It would be surprising if Trump did not see this happening with the knowledge of the Turkish invasion before he decided to withdraw American troops.

This Kurdish split is advantageous for Turkey because of the SDF connection with the so-called terrorist group, the PKK, in Turkey.

Since the SDF’s territory borders Turkey, Turkey wanted to create a buffer zone between their state for power and safety. While fighting the SDF, Turkey is placing Arab and Turkish fighters against Kurdish fighters, which gives way for a possible ethnic conflict.

The Kurds, isolated and betrayed by the American withdrawal, were forced to make a deal with the devil, the Syrian government.

This deal allowed al-Assad to gain control of the entire country while the SDF was forced to retreat in exchange for protection from the Turkish military. The SDF leader said that this was a choice between genocide and compromise, so he chose compromise, thus prioritizing

the lives of his people.

There are constant threats for civilians. From the possible reactivation of Islamic State fighters from sleeper cells and those who were released from imprisonment to possible imprisonment by military forces of anyone who speaks out against the government to the destruction of roads and thus inability for supplies from NGOs to come to the people who need it most.

With the decline of the SDF and the regain of control of government forces, conversations for the end of the war are finally beginning in the United Nations. Assad, backed by Turkey and Russia, leads a regime that slashes civilians’ inalienable rights. He will continue to rule unjustly as he did just ten years ago. With masses of displaced people affected by this conflict, millions of refugees scattered around the globe, and Kurdish people were betrayed by their American allies. The people controlling the future of Syria (Erdogan of Turkey, Putin of Russia, and al-Assad of Syria) are corrupt, money and power-hungry dictators who do not have the lives, safety, and successful unification of their civilians in mind. It is important for the U.S. to take a stand and protect vulnerable populations the U.S. has betrayed, from refugees to Kurdish people.

Clare Grindinger ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at cgrindinger@wustl. edu.

International

Want to see your writing or art in our next issue?

ad WUPR always invites new artists and writers.

To get involved in our next issue visit wupr.org/contribute

31