December 2012Chapel Hill Political Review

TheHill

Are things getting better?Reforms in

Prison,Education, &Agriculture

From the Editor

MANAGING EDITORS

Sam HobbsRadhika Kshatriya

SECTION EDITORS

Brian GodfreyAlex Jones

WRITERS

Jon BuchleiterEllis Dyson

Brian GodfreySam HobbsAlex JonesSky Jones

Radhika KshatriyaNikki MandellRichard Zheng

DESIGN

Radhika Kshatriya

HEAD OF ART

Robert Bridgers

TREASURER

Christie Blazevich

FACULTY ADVISOR

Ferrel Guillory

Cover photo taken by Jack Delano circa 1939. From The Library of

Congress

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national, and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events, and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

thehillpr@gmail.comhttp://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehillhttp://chapelhillpoliticalreview.wordpress.com

208 Frank Porter Graham Student UnionUNC-CH Campus Box 5210Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

Send us your comments!

We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, please) and tell us what you think.

In the last issue of The Hill, we focused on the 2012 presidential election and the various issues at stake in that contest. Now that the election is finally over, we thought we would look past the politics and examine some areas of domestic policy that are often overlooked. Accordingly, our fo-cus for this issue is reform.

The talk in Washington is all defi-cit reduction, and austerity pres-ents both pitfalls and opportuni-ties for reform. Our cover article looks at the potential changes to our education system and discusses some of the different ideas to improve it. Additionally, we follow the progress, or lack thereof, on the farm bill and its important impact on the agricul-tural industry. We also cover the crisis in our prisons and propose what we can do about it.

Of course, there are also impor-tant issues occurring in foreign affairs that we could not ignore. For instance, there is no end in sight for the ongoing rebellion in

Syria, and the prospects for the latest ceasefire there are dismal. We examine the status of Iran’s nuclear program and the West’s efforts to stop it. On a more posi-tive note, we share the remarkable story of a young girl in Pakistan whose bravery could mark a turn-ing point in the war on terror.

This issue includes a discussion of what the 2012 election showed about demographic trends in the US. And finally, in light of the Supreme Court case on affirma-tive action, two of our writers go head-to-head and argue whether or not affirmative action is still an appropriate and justified policy in college admissions.

Thanks for reading this issue of The Hill. We hope you enjoy it and continue to read our maga-zine in the future.

Sam Hobbs Radhika Kshatriya

To our readers: 2

DomesticAffirmative Action Pro & Con

Changes in the American Electorate

Cover

Education Reform

Agricultural Reform

Prison Reform

4

6

10

12

13

7

Volume XIIIssue II Contents

3Contents

International

Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

The Syrian Ceasefire

Mexico’s Comeback Party

8

14

Domestic 4

The most common rhetoric against affirmative action is that it simply is not needed anymore. After all, we live in a post-racial America, right? But this is part of one of the longest running myths in this country, the notion of an American Meritocracy—any-one’s failings are related to their personal effort and little else. It is not particularly difficult to see why this is so popular. It is a comfortable idea, one that neatly consolidates the past and files it away as finished and irrelevant. By compartmentalizing history and separating it from the pres-ent, we conveniently displace so-cietal culpability into a temporal nether-zone. In other words, we claim that it ain’t our problem.

The problem with this is that time does not divide so cleanly. The past bleeds into every aspect of society from the institutional level right down to our daily lives, and affirmative action in the col-lege admissions process is just a small measure to account for the inequality that has not yet been erased from American culture.

When someone claims racism is no longer existent in the US, show them the Clark Doll experi-ment. First done in 1939, African-American children were shown white and dark-skinned dolls and asked various questions, such as “Which is the mean doll?” and “Which doll looks like you?” Dis-turbingly, most of the children answered that the darker doll was the mean one, and then self-iden-tified with it.

Similar experiments done in the last ten years show little differ-ence in results. How can anyone

Affirmative Action is NecesssarySky Jones

claim racism is not a problem anymore when small children are internalizing negative atti-tudes about their own skin; in a nation where media appearances by minorities are rare, token and stereotypical, and young black men are stopped on the streets by police simply because they “look dangerous”?

Societal inequality is real and it is tangible. In 2010, 5.1 percent of white students dropped out of high school. In contrast, eight percent of black students never graduate, and an alarming fif-teen percent of Hispanic students withdraw before receiving their diplomas. This has nothing to do with innate ability and everything to do with living in a society that typifies, devalues and sets expec-tations for human beings based on what they look like. Yet, when confronted with all of this, op-ponents of affirmative action fall back on the old argument that discrimination cannot be rem-edied with discrimination.

Affirmative action is not discrimi-nation against white students, nor does it perpetuate racist attitudes against minorities. On this sub-ject, Professor Anna Agbe-Davies of the UNC-CH Department of Anthropology says, “It is impossi-ble to undermine racism without acknowledging that differences exist, and that it is society itself that reifies them.”

Abolishing affirmative action would only sweep inequality un-

der the rug where it can fester and grow, but by acknowledging the existence of inequality it is dragged into the light where we might remove it from our soci-ety. Merit and potential cannot be measured in raw GPA, test scores and extracurriculars. Affirmative action understands that there is no extrication of triumph or shortcoming from the context in which it happened. It identifies a holistic merit and integrates it not only to improve our institutions but also to improve our nation.

The existence of inequality can-not be denied, and affirmative ac-tion is not enough on its own to change its actuality. Agbe-Davies says this: “If we want to keep the world the way it is, we should just keep doing what we’re doing.” The recent bans of affirmative ac-tion in California and Florida are a step backwards. It is the govern-ment selectively erasing history and pretending that inequality is no longer extant or relevant, when it is quite the opposite. Critics are quick to mention that anybody can try to climb the ladder, but what they fail to mention is that for some the ladder is broken.

Sky Jones is an Undeclared First Year.

Affirmative action in the college admis-sions process is just a small measure to account for the inequality that has not yet been erased from American culture

5Domestic

Currently being debated in the nation’s highest court is the whether the U.S. constitution al-lows state-funded universities to consider race as a factor in admis-sion’s decisions.

In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments about affirma-tive action. The defenders of af-firmative action did not mention fairness—probably because they knew that basing an argument for affirmative action on fairness would leave them without a case.

Fisher v. University of Texas was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who believes she was re-

jected by the University of Texas due to her race. She believes that she has been denied equal treat-ment under the law. And the conservative justices have been sympathetic, expressing con-cerns that the only people to ben-efit from affirmative action are wealthy minorities. If this is true, affirmative action should not be a system we support. As a nation, we should aim to give preferen-tial treatment on the basis of true disadvantage, not on the basis of assuaging our guilt for our collec-tive moral wrongs.

Those arguing on the side of keep-ing affirmative action programs did not use the argument that affirmative action is an effective way to grant reparations for past injustices and inequality. Instead, they chose to defend affirmative

Why the justifications for affirmative action are wrong Radhika Kshatriya

action on the basis that it increas-es diversity, and the benefits that diversity in the classroom brings to all citizens.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that race can be a factor in ad-missions decisions if the goal is diversity. Diversity is important, but fairness and justice are more important. And fairness is being neglected in this case for the sake of diversity. Instead of having universities that place more im-portance on an applicant’s race, universities should place more importance on an applicant’s eco-nomic status. While the United States has an overwhelming his-tory of racism, and outright rac-

ism does still exist, race relations have become more manifest in a person’s economic status rather than her skin tone. In fact, Justice O’Connor famously stated in the 2003 ruling that affirmative ac-tion would become unnecessary within 25 years. And affirmative action programs often provide disproportionate benefits to mi-norities from wealthy households, while harming both minorities and non-minorities that come from lower-income families.

So, yes, diversity is incredibly important to creating educating citizens, but fostering diversity within racial groups is also im-portant. The current policy on affirmative action only sponsors diversity within one class of soci-ety, while prohibiting those from lower-income backgrounds from

having equal protection under the law, a very un-American thought.

Radhika Kshatriya is a senior majoring in Philosophy

Diversity is important, but fairness and justice are more important. And fair-ness is being neglected in this case for

the sake of diversity.

Domestic 6

The hype surrounding the pres-idential election was palpable. Maybe it was because of all the first-time voters on campus, but there was a sense of this being a defining moment for this genera-tion, for America, and for history.

So, what exactly changed?

Looking at the result, it seems like this grand contest before our na-tion led us to the same place we started. President Obama has four more years, and Congress is still divided with the Senate in the hands of the Democrats and a Re-publican majority in the House. Yet, it is exactly this stagnation, or rather constancy, which proves the race-defining demographic changes only theorized in 2008.

Perhaps the most pertinent of these is the nonwhite vote. Rom-ney’s campaign banked on not only winning the white vote, but also having that group overwhelm the electorate far more than it did in 2008. Though Romney did win nearly six out of every ten white voters, minority voters turned out in similar numbers if not higher than four years earlier.

In fact, Romney built his cam-paign on the assumption of an inconsequential Latino vote from the beginning. With attempts to push ahead of the pack as a staunch conservative in the pri-maries, Romney was forced to make certain contrasts between himself and his opponents. He saw Rick Perry’s stance on edu-cating the children of illegal im-migrants in Texas as a conser-vative Achilles, and soon used a “tough on immigration” tactic to distinguish himself. In doing so,

Changes in the American ElectorateNikki Mandell

Romney alienated an entire base of voters crucial to the election.

The nonwhite demographic made up 28 percent of the vote, of which Obama won 80 percent, an undeniable stronghold especially apparent in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Even women came out in huge numbers to support Obama.

It seems the term “traditional voter” no longer applies, as citi-zens of different backgrounds, genders, religions, and sexual orientations are not only increas-ing their stake in the country, but they are doing so with a passion that demands results. Hours af-ter the election was called for Obama, Franklin Street was filled with screams declaring the legal-ization of recreational marijuana in Colorado or of gay marriage in Maryland.

But the most interesting part about the scene on Franklin is not necessarily what the students were screaming about, but rather that they were students, scream-ing, about politics. Young vot-ers made up 16-19 percent of the electorate and 60 percent of them voted to reelect Obama.

Although the notion that young-er college students tend to vote liberal is not news, Greg Kinear, class of 2012, notes a difference with the past two elections. “The rockstar-like appeal of Barack Obama to younger voters has re-ally solidified that already liberal base for him,” he said.

There have definitely been “rock-star” moments for Obama at Cha-pel Hill. Both Obamas came to speak to the community, with the

President’s visit including a live taping of The Jimmy Fallon Show with a musical guest of The Dave Matthews Band. Yet, his cam-paign, as well as Romney’s, also took subtler grassroots approach-es to reach the students with ad-vocates standing on all corners of the campus.

All of which, however, would have been worthless without the onslaught of volunteers standing next to them, and in front of the UL, and in front of the entrance to Chick-fil-a, asking whether or not you were registered to vote.

The youth vote is another demo-graphic on the rise that, in accor-dance with the black and Hispanic vote, helped seal Obama’s victory. The Romney campaign wrote off 2008 as a sensationalized bounce among these portions of the elec-torate; something that the grav-ity of the country’s national debt would quickly pull back down to more a more typical statistic.

But expecting a typical past runs the risk of ignoring a changed re-ality. When your opponent grows a foot and gains fifty pounds, you don’t use the same takedown tac-tic you used ten years ago. If Re-publicans continue to refuse to evolve along with the American demographic, and instead stick to the old tried and true support base, they could face the same outcome in 2016.

Nikki Mandell is a Sophomore majoring in Journalism & Mass Communications

7International

Iran’s nuclear program has been a point of contention between Western powers and Iran’s lead-ers for a decade as it slowly in-creases in intensity, receiving greater press coverage. Attention spiked recently following an in-terview featuring bold, belliger-ent statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and further discussion of the is-sue featured on the campaign trail, notably in the final foreign policy presidential debate. It seems clear that no Western lead-ers want Iran to develop nuclear weapo¬ns but that there has been a great deal of disagreement on what course of action is necessary and proper to prevent this devel-opment.

Despite numerous preventative actions, the Iranian nuclear en-richment program has contin-ued to make progress. The pro-gram has faced countless efforts to delay and derail its continued development of uranium, includ-ing assassinations regarded to be organized by the Israeli intel-ligence agency, Mossad. In June 2012 the Stuxnet computer virus developed by the U.S. and Israel destroyed approximated 1/6 of Iran’s centrifuges used in the en-richment process. These attacks have certainly been setbacks but appear to have been minor and have failed to measurably delay the enrichment process. Both the U.N. and the U.S. have pursued successive rounds of sanctions since 2006 that have weakened Iran’s economy but have not suc-cessfully setback development.

As Iran continues to move closer to the bomb, there remains dis-agreement about how and when

Curtailing Iran’s Nuclear PowerJon Buchleiter

to move forward with efforts to delay Iran’s efforts. Continued sanctions remain on the table, with the option of expanded sanc-tions as well. At the moment, these sanctions and threats indi-cating a willingness to use mili-tary force appear the furthest extent to which most of the inter-national community is prepared to go. Given the current sanctions’ track record, many analysts don’t believe that this course alone will prevent the Iranian regime from producing nuclear weapons.

If the West is truly committed to preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon, it appears they will have to pursue a new course of action. Israel seems willing and ready to use those military options available when they be-lieve the threat to be imminent. Listening to Mr. Netanyahu’s re-marks in September 2012, it ap-peared the Israeli’s were ready to act now. However, further state-ments from other Israeli lead-ers and defense experts seems to indicate they are unwilling to act without U.S. support. For the most part, the U.S. has declared a commitment to prevent Iran from procuring a bomb but has not de-clared at what point they would be willing to use military force.

What shape could military action take? Given the recent history of military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, any operation the includes “boots on the ground” will likely be a last resort. Other military options certainly exist, ranging from a unilateral Israeli effort to a coordinated coalition operation. According to Matthew Kroenig, professor of Interna-tional Relations at Georgetown University, a US airstrike would

likely be able to destroy three of Iran’s four nuclear facilities, along with other peripheral sites. Kroenig believes this blow would delay Iran for five to seven years. However, priorities for these air-strikes complicates this option. Military planners would prefer that strikes target Iran’s military bases to paralyze any counterat-tack efforts. Such strikes with the potential for significant collateral damage muddy the water in dis-tinguishing between a surgical strike solely aimed at the nuclear program and a broader attack on the entire country of Iran.

Underneath all of the rhetoric, the fact still remains. Iran con-tinues to enrich uranium and develop nuclear capabilities. El-bridge Colby from the Center of Naval Analyses and Kroenig both agree that the time for further ac-tion will almost certainly come in 2013. Preemptive military action must come before the uranium is read to be mounted on a war-head in order to be effective. At this point the enriched uranium can become mobile and strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities will not destroy it. With the failure of current sanctions and the current appearance of a lack of credibility behind threats of military action, it appears leaders will need to somehow validate their threats or

International 8

Recent airstrikes from the Syr-ian government left both the out-skirts of Damascus and the tem-porary ceasefire in shambles.

On Sunday October 28th, the Syr-ian government’s airstrike dev-astated the areas surrounding

Damascus, leaving at least 128 people dead – assuring Syrians that a temporary ceasefire was out of the question.

Syrian Ceasefire, Round TwoEllis Dyson

The temporary truce called between President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and the Syrian rebel army was meant to offer ci-vilians a few days of peace during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Ad-ha. But, so far, no signs of peace are emerging from either side of the Syrian civil war.

As the conflict in Syria contin-ues to fester, countries across the globe are wondering when Syria will reach its boiling point.

¬In an interview with The Hill, UNC PhD student Bryce Loidolt, who spent the summer in Egypt, discussed the current state of the conflict and possible foreign in-tervention.

“Syria definitely seemed to be on the agenda in Egypt this sum-

mer. The Syrian opposition has a relatively large presence in Tah-rir Square, where the Egyptian revolution began,” Loidolt said. “It was definitely on the minds of Egyptians particularly given the fact that a number of Syrians have relocated to Egypt. “

A recent statement made by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani, Qatar’s prime minister,

As the conflict in Syria continues to fester, countries across the globe are wondering when Syria will reach its

boiling point

9International

supports the notion that Arab na-tions are taking notice.

Just hours after the failed four-day Syrian ceasefire, Al Thani de-livered a strongly worded speech to the Al Jazeera Arabic Network. In his speech, he accused the Syr-ian government of waging a “war of extermination.” He also ac-cused foreign nations of stand-ing by while President Bashar al-Assad’s forces continued to slaughter rebels and civilians alike.

Al Thani did, however, manage to put an optimistic spin on the failed ceasefire. The prime minis-ter said that he sensed “a bigger awakening” amongst Arab na-tions and other foreign powers – an awareness that could bring an end to the civil war.

Al Thani believes that aid from other Arab nations could help to bring down President Bashar al-Assad’s longstanding dictator-ship. But foreign leaders such as Russia and China are not making intervention an easy process.

Leaders in Russia and China have moved to block stronger U.N. National Security Council action. Due to repeated vetoes of the at-tempts of the National Security Council to seek stronger action in Syria, many have accused Rus-sia of backing the Syrian gov-ernment. But Russia says it only wants a political solution deter-mined by Syria, and not by for-eign nations.

Is foreign intervention neces-sary to end the fighting in Syria?

Loidolt believes it is.

“Based on some of the past re-porting I’ve seen, it looks like some Arab countries already have tried to intervene. The Saudis have tried to open some official channels with the Syrian opposi-tion. But it’s mostly been human-itarian assistance,” he said. “The real question is will these coun-tries provide more overt, direct military support in Syria.”

Loidolt also said that it looks as if foreign intervention could bring an end to the war.

“Ultimately what needs to hap-pen is one side needs to be mili-tarily defeated, or lose the resolve to fight” he said. But Loidolt also said that at this point neither side of the conflict is seeking a long-term peace agreement. “Unless we start seeing major defections from the Syrian regime, it’s some-thing that will probably have to be resolved by outside forces,” he said.

The prospect of a ceasefire in Syr-ia is virtually unattainable. Each side is thinking victory, not peace.

But one reason that a ceasefire will not be reached, Loidolt says, is a lack of organization on the part of the Syrian rebel army. “The rebel army is a mixed group that doesn’t appear to be coordi-nating at the strategic level,” he says. “There’s no chain of com-mand where a single leader can call a temporary end to fighting and the fighters respond accord-ingly.”

The prime minister said that he sensed “a bigger awakening” amongst Arab nations and other foreign powers – an awareness that could bring an end to

the civil war

There is no clear endpoint in the Syrian civil war, which has been ongoing for a little over a year now. For now, the casualties are piling up day by day and foreign nations are seeking some way to end the ongoing struggle. And the casualties will continue until one side wins.

Ellis Dyson is a Sophomore ma-joring in Journalism and Politi-cal Science.

Throughout the 2012 presi-dential election, both candidates sparred frequently over the hot topics of economic and foreign policy. Although education was not the focus of the campaign, it was a frequently discussed topic and the differences between the two candidates’ views could not have been more stark. Governor Romney endorsed a voucher sys-tem for education that he first in-

troduced in May of 2012, whereas President Obama touted “Race to the Top” and various other edu-cation programs passed under his administration. Now that the election is over and Congress is likely to overhaul the federal bud-get, it is even more important to evaluate proposed education re-forms and the future of education in Obama’s second term.

As he often boasted during his reelection campaign, Obama ini-tiated a number of significant changes to our education system during his first term. He support-ed the extension of Pell Grants to both low and middle-income stu-dents, and he pressed Congress to maintain lower interest rates on those loans. In the 2011-2012 academic year, federal financial aid covered 37 percent of college undergraduates.

The Options for EducationWhat’s on and off the table

Richard ZhengObama also pushed through his “Race to the Top” program, which encouraged education reform in the states by creating a competi-tion for federal funds. Through an application system, states re-ceived points based upon fulfill-ing a list of criteria, such as com-plying with national standards or evaluating teacher performance. Thus far, four billion dollars have been awarded to twelve different states, and Race to the Top has

prompted other states to consid-erably change their policies.

However, some critics view “Race to the Top” as an extension of Bush’s failed “No Child Left Be-hind Act” (NCLB). Part of the list of criteria for the “Race to the Top” competition involves the state adopt-ing common s t a n d a r d s outlined in the “Common Core State S t a n d a r d s I n i t i a t i v e ” . Similar to Bush’s NCLB that affected mass standardized testing, the Com-mon Core goes one step further and attempts to align each state’s education curriculum under a na-tional standard. This encourages teachers to “teach to the test,” rather than making sure that stu-

dents have a comprehensive un-derstanding of the subject. There are also no incentives for schools to tailor programs for more ad-vanced students.

Another complaint with “Race to the Top” is the requirement for states to use value-added assess-ments when evaluating teacher performance. Although this method involves comparing a student’s current scores with his previous year’s scores as well as his peers, critics argue that it still does not take into account factors outside of the teacher’s control (i.e. student background, exter-nal environment, etc.). These are the same issues teachers raised with NCLB, and critics argue that “Race to the Top” will continue to propagate the problems associ-ated with standards-based educa-tion reform.

On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives have re-cently been championing charter schools and a voucher system for public education. Outlined in his

“A Chance for Every Child” pro-posal, Romney’s voucher system is an idea that is actually already in place in multiple states across the nation. A recent state to do so was Indiana, which passed its school voucher law in 2011. Es-sentially, instead of giving federal

Now that the election is over and Con-gress is likely to overhaul the federal budget, it is even more important to evaluate proposed education reforms and the future of education in Obama’s

second term

On the other side of the politi-cal spectrum, conservatives have recently been champion-ing charter schools and a vouch-er system for public education

Cover 10

funding to state schools based upon pre-determined formulas (such as a per-pupil basis), the money would be given as subsi-

dies to the students themselves to choose the school and loca-tion at which they wish to at-tend. The idea is to dissolve the lines between poorer inner-city schools and more affluent sub-urban schools, allowing children from the cities to leap across the economic boundaries holding them back. In the case of Indiana, there were 7,500 vouchers avail-able in its first year of implemen-tation, which doubled to 15,000 in the 2012 – 2013 school year. The cap on vouchers disappears next year, and considering that students need not be stuck at a failing school to be eligible for the voucher, this makes Indiana one of the largest and most inclusive voucher systems in the nation.

Results of the new voucher sys-tem have been mixed so far. Graded on an A-F scale, many schools have jumped multiple let-

ter grades in the past few years following the change, including multiple “high poverty” schools. Nevertheless, there are many crit-ics of this new system. For one, private schools are not bound by constitutional limits that are placed on traditional schools, so even with a voucher or subsidy, some of the better private schools can charge above the value of the voucher. Furthermore, teachers complain that many students and schools will be left behind and ne-glected as others in their area flee to better districts. It remains to be seen whether or not a voucher program would be successful as a national program.

In addition to the grand educa-tional overhauls proposed at the

federal level, there were a num-ber of significant reforms intro-duced in varying states. Their fate suggests how difficult it will be to amend our broken system. In California, Proposition 30, the “Schools and Local Safety Protec-tion Act,” will reverse the cuts to education in past years and pro-vide up to $6 billion a year for public education. In both Idaho and North Dakota, initiatives for merit pay for teachers were de-feated at the polls. Missouri and Arizona both turned down tax increases that would have funded state schools. Ultimately, educa-tion reform remains a top priority after the election and continues to be an issue voters are passionate about.

Richard Zheng is a Sophomore majoring in Business.

In addition to the grand educational overhauls proposed at the federal level, there were a number of significant re-

forms introduced in varying states

Cover 11

In 1933, President Franklin Roo-sevelt signed into law the Agricul-tural Adjustment Act – our coun-try’s first farm bill. The act was designed to offer relief to Ameri-ca’s farmers who were struggling under the Great Depression by offering crop subsidies. In ex-change for agreeing not to grow certain crops on portions of their land, the government would pay farmers what they could have ex-pected from the market. This ar-rangement reduced the surplus of crops, thereby increasing their value and helping to keep farm-ers afloat. The program helped to save the agriculture industry and was the origin of our nation’s farm policy.

In the decades since, the farm bill, which Congress reauthorizes approximately every five years, has grown to include a host of ad-ditional measures. The farmer’s safety net has become more ro-bust, offering crop insurance, di-saster relief and direct payments. Beginning in 1973, the farm bill became an omnibus piece of leg-islation that dealt with a wide range of policies only indirectly related to agriculture, such as nu-trition assistance, conservation, trade and bioenergy.

The last farm bill – passed in 2008 – expired on 30 Septem-ber 2012, but Congress has yet to agree on a new piece of legis-lation to replace it, instead pass-ing a temporary extension of the old law. Generally, the farm bill is uncontroversial and passes quickly and easily with bipartisan support, but this time is different. Both parties, with the encourage-ment of the agriculture industry, hope to enact the most significant

A Chance for Agriculture ReformSam Hobbs

reform to our farm policy in de-cades.

The reason for this cry for reform is that there are some serious problems in our current industry. The first problem is the cost. The farm bill will cost nearly one tril-lion dollars over ten years, and, given that the overwhelming focus in Washington right now is deficit reduction, this makes it a prime target for cuts. Furthermore, since their inception in 1933, the subsidies programs have discour-aged small-scale farming, lead-ing to the industrial-sized farms that dominate agriculture today. Similarly, the direct payments and crop insurance dispropor-tionately benefit wealthy farmers, who many claim do not need or deserve government assistance.

Proposals in Congress seek to address some of these issues, but the legislature is predictably deadlocked. The Senate passed a bill with bipartisan support in June, but legislation stalled in the House in July.

Various issues in the farm econ-omy have stirred debate. Farm income has been high recently, leading some to push for a weaker safety net, but volatility has also increased, which others cite as reason for a strengthened safety net. Congress has found a rea-sonable compromise. With slight distinctions, both the Senate and House proposals eliminate direct payments and reduce crop insur-ance for wealthy farmers, but they also strengthen government sup-port in other respects. The his-toric drought across the Midwest this year cost the federal govern-ment an estimated record of 15 billion dollars in crop insurance.

This episode has led Congress to reexamine its disaster relief pro-grams.

The biggest point of contention between the House and Senate versions concerns the nutrition assistance program, more com-monly known as food stamps. A record 46 million Americans signed up for food stamps in 2012 – a result of the recession and a sluggish recovery – and they constitute 78 percent of the total cost of the farm bill. The Senate cut four billion dollars from the nutrition assistance program, but the House’s proposal calls for 16 billion dollars in cuts, the larg-est cuts to the program in over a generation, which many say is too much though others contend is not enough.

Farm policy is certainly not sexy, but it is vitally important. The US agriculture industry employs 16 million people and provides our country with some of the cheap-est, safest and best quality food in the world. Congress is unlikely to pass a farm bill until 2013, but it will be a part of the discussion in the budget negotiations. The Sen-ate bill found 23 billion dollars in cuts, while the House proposal found 35 billion; early in 2012, Obama recommended 33 billion dollars in cuts – an obvious target for compromise. The likely farm bill is not the sweeping overhaul we would hope for, but it is a sen-sible start to reform we need.

Sam Hobbs is a Senior majoring in History.

Cover 12

There are 3,000,000 people behind bars in the United States – that is more than the entire city of Chicago. Every 25 minutes, one of these prisoners is raped, and over half of them will return to prison during their lifetimes. To get a sense of the scope of the problem, consider the fact that our nation’s incarceration rate exceeds those of serial human rights abusers such as North Korea, Russia and Iran. It is disturbing that our country is in league with such a group. The situation has become so severe that even in these polar-ized times both Republicans and Democrats support reforming America’s prison system.

The real-world crisis of incarcera-tion arose from an intellectual abstraction. In the 1970’s, the po-litical scientist James Q. Wilson found that a small number of peo-ple committed the vast majority of violent crimes. Based on this insight, Wilson proposed identi-fying highly predatory citizens by counting the number of felonies a given criminal had committed. Once they had committed three felonies--or, put more colloqui-ally, “strikes”--convicts would be locked up for life. From these “three strikes” laws sprang count-less other draconian sentencing policies, until the United States incarcerated more of its citizens than the rest of the world’s na-tions combined.

The 1980’s were a ripe time for dealing harshly with criminals. Crime had increased exponen-tially over the preceding two de-cades, despite rising living stan-dards for the poor. Criminality was so intense that New York City Mayor Ed Koch memorably called

Fixing American PrisonsAlex Jones

his fellow Republican George H.W. Bush a “wimp” in dealing with drug crimes. Meanwhile, “New Democrats” like Bill Clinton honed alternative anti-crime poli-cies that focused on swapping out pistols for pencils in dangerous neighborhoods in an attempt to combat the perception that their party was weak on crime. This heady moment passed, however, as crime rates fell rapidly dur-ing the 1990’s and remained flat during the first decade of the 21st century. Cities were safer, but the heavy-handed policies that were adopted to halt the crime wave did not change, nor did the flow of thousands of Americans per year to prisons.

The results have been devastat-ing to our society. Prisons are so overcrowded that inmates are subjected to hellish conditions; in 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the State of California to either increase its funding for prisons or release thousands of prisoners, because of evidence that showed significant numbers of inmates were malnourished. Poor liv-ing conditions and the constant threat of rape are often only a prelude to a life of greater misery for inmates.

The United States has such a high rate of recidivism that, in Senator James Webb’s phrase, prison has become “an alternative lifestyle” for some Americans. Meanwhile, the families of inmates must get by with only one parent, which ac-counts for a great deal of why six out of ten African American chil-dren are raised in single-parent homes. This constrains human capital development in the home and harms our economy over the long term. In addition, convicted

felons cannot vote, which some argue makes our political sys-tem significantly less democrat-ic--3,000,000 votes could have doubled President Obama’s mar-gin of victory in the popular vote, or reversed it.

There are a number of common-sense reforms on the table that could address the problems in our prison system. Introducing more flexibility in sentencing laws so that mandated sentences do not tie judges’ hands would al-low judges to exercise discretion and consider mitigating factors in cases that warrant leniency. For example, since so many in-mates are incarcerated for non-violent crimes like possession of marijuana, reforming drug policy to de-emphasize petty drug of-fenses could reduce the num-ber of people who go to prison in the first place. Once they get out, parole policies that provide incentives for good behavior and swift, short-term punishments for relapses have been proven to reduce recidivism.

The grim scenario we face was not predetermined. As John F. Ken-nedy said, “(N)o human destiny is beyond human control.” In other words, we can end the overin-carceration crisis. The question is whether we are willing to grit our teeth and amputate the limb before this cancer of callousness finishes us off.

Alex Jones is a Sophomore ma-joring in Public Policy.

13Cover

International 14

The year 2000 marked the end of 71 years of political dominance in Mexico when, for the first time since 1929, the presidential can-didate for the Institutional Revo-lutionary Party (PRI) failed to win the election. Founded in the wake of years of political and so-cial turmoil after Mexico’s Revo-lution, the PRI came to rule the country as a one-party regime that paralleled the government. For the better part of the century, the PRI’s political dominance—and repression of opposition—en-sured their presence at the helm of the Mexican state.

Coined “the perfect dictatorship,” the party designed a constitution in which a President only serves a singular six-year term. In doing this, the PRI ensured that their leadership evolved over time and opened doors for patronage, in-centivizing party loyalty.

For seven decades, the PRI over-saw Mexico’s development into a modern state. Although the PRI often resorted to repression and ballot-manipulation, it always had varying degrees of support by a large portion of Mexicans. Gradually, the PRI strategically allowed political liberalization as a way of appeasing dissent.

By the late 20th century, the PRI’s dominance was beginning to fade. Already they had lost some legitimacy as a governing force as a result of Mexico’s debt crisis in 1984 and currency crisis in 1994. The 1990s saw opposition parties wrestle control of the legislature for the first time since the PRI’s founding. All of this finally culmi-nated in the successful election of the National Action Party (PAN)

Mexico’s Comeback PartyBrian Godfrey

presidential candidate, Vincente Fox. The PRI peacefully trans-ferred power and Mexico’s 21st century democracy was born.

The PAN remained in power for twelve years—two Presidents—leading up to 2012. This year, Mexico has continued to face seri-ous economic and social troubles. The Great Recession alongside competition from other devel-oping countries like China have stunted the country’s growth. To make matters worse, violence and corruption stemming from drug cartels have shaken the founda-tions of Mexico’s stability.

This past summer, Mexican vot-ers returned to the polls for an-other Presidential election. In a fascinating historical event, the results came in to return the PRI to leadership. Peña Nieto, the popular and young governor of the State of Mexico, was elected to the Presidency with an agenda of pragmatic leadership and the promotion of economic growth and stability. It seemed that many voters, disillusioned by the PAN’s handling of the cartels and the economy, wanted a return to the PRI’s experience.

At 45-years-old, Nieto pres-ents himself as a member of the younger, new PRI generation. Af-ter the election, Nieto continued to attempt to alleviate fears about a return to the party’s authoritar-ian and corrupt past. Promising transparency and moderation, the new President has been keen to focus on the solution-oriented, no-nonsense leadership which characterized PRI politics during the successful years of its past.

Nieto also promised to continue

aggressive action to combat the cartels—disputing rumors that his administration would com-promise with the criminal orga-nizations. At a time of acceler-ated violence, Nieto claims that combatting the cartel’s influence will have to be fought on multiple fronts. Citing economic growth, the new President emphasized that stability and the ameliora-tion of poverty are essential in combating crime. He is in favor of furthering NAFTA and eco-nomic integration with the Unit-ed States. In addition, Nieto is in favor of working with his neigh-bors to reduce the American de-mand for drugs.

The PRI’s return to power comes at a unique time for Mexico. Vot-ers democratically opted to rein-state a previously dominant party at a time when, as Nieto notes in a New York Times editorial, “more Mexicans are coming back to Mexico than those leaving my country to find jobs in the United States.” It is clear that the con-temporary PRI and President Ni-eto will continue to respect Mex-ico’s democracy and have long since left the party’s authoritarian past. But the question remains, how will the PRI confront the many issues facing Mexico going forward?

Brian Godfrey is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and Global Studies

On October 9, a group of Paki-stani Taliban fighters stopped a van carrying a group of girls home from school. They were looking for a 14-year-old girl named Ma-lala Yousufzai, and they coerced the other girls into pointing her out. Once identified, the armed men opened fire on Malala, strik-ing her in the head and neck and wounding two others.

The Taliban targeted Malala be-cause she kept a blog cataloguing the Taliban’s efforts to prevent women from receiving an educa-tion. She documented their use of intimidation and violence, and she argued passionately for the right of all women to go to school. For this simple yet profound act of bravery, the Taliban issued multiple death threats against her and eventually decided to follow through.

Miraculously, Malala survived this attempt on her life, and, within a month of the attack, she was reading, talking and smil-ing again with no serious brain or spinal injuries. As tragic and horrific as Malala’s story is, it is hardly uncommon. The Taliban have been committing similar atrocities in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan for years, but in Pakistan, the public has been sur-prisingly oblivious to these acts of terror within their own country. The difference with Malala’s case is that the public finally seems to have taken notice.

There has been a massive out-pouring of support for Malala in the weeks since her attack, and the people participated in huge demonstrations across Pakistan. In Pakistan, they have their own

Malala’s MomentSam Hobbs

brand of the Taliban, known as the Tahrik-e-Taliban, which is distinct from the organization the US is fighting in Afghanistan. The Pakistani Taliban operates mostly in the Northwest Province of Pakistan, and their firm grip on the region has convinced the Pakistani government that it is easier to cooperate with the Tali-ban than to fight them. However, the public’s outrage over Malala’s shooting has been so strong that it appears to have moved Paki-stan’s government to reconsider its approach to the Taliban.

In the weeks before Malala’s shooting, Pakistan’s politicians and military officers identified the United States and its increasing use of drone strikes as the biggest security threat to their country. Some Pakistanis have gone so far as to say that the Taliban is sim-ply a response to the American strikes. However, drone strikes hardly explain why the Taliban targeted Malala, or why they have promised to try to kill again. Since 2004, US drone strikes have killed nearly 3,200 people in Pakistan, with 85 percent of those killed labeled as militants. In con-trast, the Pakistani Taliban has killed over 14,000 civilians and 4,000 soldiers and policemen since 2003. Given these statis-tics, to blame drone strikes seems woefully, if not willfully, ignorant.

The US has pleaded with Paki-stan for years to address the mu-tual problems posed by the Paki-stani Taliban, but to little effect. The Pakistani Taliban provides a sanctuary and support to their counterparts in Afghanistan, making it nearly impossible for the US to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan. If the US and Paki-

stan were to launch a coordinated offensive against the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, then it would leave the militants with nowhere to run and hide, and could present a turning point in the war on terror for all parties involved. Of course, Pakistan has resisted such an operation be-cause it tacitly supports the Tali-ban in Afghanistan as a means to assert their influence on their neighbor, but Malala’s coura-geous example and the public support it generated might have changed that calculation.

There are still serious obstacles to realizing this goal. Pakistan’s pre-vious efforts against the Taliban in the Northwest Province were not very successful, and there remains a complicated myriad of competing interests between Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and the two Talibans that have scuttled attempts at cooperation in the past and could easily do so again. However, this is a sin-gular opportunity in the decade-long war against the Taliban, and it would be folly to ignore it. It is one of those remarkable mo-ments in history where the life of an otherwise unknown individual is able to inspire a nation and maybe to change the world.

Sam Hobbs is a Senior majoring in History.

15International