Kenyon Observerthe

January 28, 2014

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate Political and cUltUral Magazine

Alex Pijanowski | page 8

In Spite of UsHow the American Right Failed toSupport South Africa’s GreatestDemocrat

Kenyon Observerthe

January 28, 2014

5

Dear Prospective Reader,

As the new semester gets underway, the Kenyon Observer is pleased to publish our first issue of the new year. As we move toward the spring months, we look forward to both continuing our exchange of ideas through print and online media and opening other avenues of discourse through upcoming projects to be announced in the near future. Leading off this issue, Alex Pijanowski notes the American Right’s lack of support for Nelson Mandela during the Apartheid era. Also in this issue, Conrad Jacober points out the inequities of merit scholarships, Gabriel Rom discusses an incident at Brown University in which New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was shouted down by student protesters, Julia McKay provides an analysis of China’s recent decision to abandon the One Child Policy and Sam Whipple highlights an ongoing immigration crisis in the Dominican Republic. We invite our readers to consider the topics discussed and the views expressed here, and to use that knowl-edge to form their own opinions on the matters they find most important. It is our hope that our contribu-tors’ words will provoke debate among students, professors, and community members alike. As always, we welcome letters and full-length submissions, both in response to content and on other topics of interest.

Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and Gabriel Rom Editors-in-Chief, the Kenyon Observer

FROm tHe eDItORS

The Kenyon ObserverJanuary 28, 2014

From the Editors

Cover Storyalex pijanowski

In Spite of UsHow the American Right Failed to Sup-port South Africa’s Greatest Democrat

conrad jacober

Reagan AcademicsThe Neoliberalization ofCollege Admissions

gabriel rom

Ray Kelly, Brown University andUnchecked Privilege

julia mckay

Reform? Or more of the Same?China Lifts the One Child Policy

sam whipple

In transit, In CrisisCitizenship in the Dominican Republic

ryan mach

the Back PageOscar Ballot 2014

5

6

8

10

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opin-ions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu

Cover Art by Brianne Presley

Editors-in-Chief Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and

Gabriel Rom

Managing EditorSofia Mandel

Featured Contributors Conrad Jacober, Ryan mach, Julia mcKay, Alex Pijanowski, Gabriel

Rom and Sam Whipple

IllustrationsBrianne Presley, ethan Primason

and Peter Falls

Faculty AdvisorProfessor Fred Baumann

12

14

wealthy students benefit greatly from merit aid, low-er class students are awarded no f inancial benefit, as need–based packages generally far outstrip merit packages in terms of dollar value. In this new admis-sions scheme, merit aid serves only to benefit stu-dents from wealthy famil ies. No merit is awarded for the achievement of lower class students, achievement that is often the result of a far greater struggle.

The problem of merit scholarships is not an iso-lated issue. The last 40 years have witnessed a coun-ter–revolution against the lower class, and higher education is only one of the fronts. There has been an utter stagnation in the real wages for the vast ma-jority of working people in the United States. That same time period has seen unprecedented growth in the wealth of the richest Americans. Since the 2008 recession alone, 95 percent of wealth gains have gone to the top 1 percent of wage earners, more than a full recovery for the wealthiest. This is paral leled with a more–than–doubling of corporate profit margins since the recession, coupled with record stock prices. On the other side, however, the story is reversed. Opposite the 31.4 percent growth in income for the top 1 percent of wage earners is a mere 0.4 percent for the lower 99 percent of wage earners between 2009 and 2012, according to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez. This pattern is not unique to the so–called recovery. This has been the course of neo-l iberal ism and “Reaganomics” f iscal policy. What we see in higher education today is but one front of this

polit ical and economic counter–revolution.The logic of suppressing wage increases for great-

er profit margins has dominated the past three and a half decades. Coupled with skyrocketing tuit ion costs, itself a result of this process, the need for need–based f inancial aid has increased dramatical ly. Some claim that by attracting wealthier students with

merit–aid awards, school wil l pull enough money to fund more lower class students with need-based f i-nancial aid packages. However, as Wake Forest econ-

omist Amanda Griff ith showed in a 2009 paper, the opposite has been true. Affirmative action for the wealthy results only in lower enrollment of students from lower class famil ies.

The exclusion of good students from high quality higher education based on class division wil l only further the trend that the global economy is follow-ing: the wealthy are gett ing wealthier and the poor are staying poor. Though I wish the problems Ke-nyon perpetuates were as easily f ixable as a change in administration, our college is only following the logic necessary to compete with similar institutions: the logic of capital. Through the process of neoliber-al ization, the logic of capital has further inf iltrated higher education. With it come its internal contradic-t ions, which elsewhere have lead to the devaluation of professors through adjuncts, the rise of for–profit colleges, and the predatory practices of private stu-dent loans. Here we see drastic rises in tuit ion, at-tempted outsourcing of labor, multiple forms of af-f irmative action for the wealthy, and a slow ecl ipse of justice for lower class students.

This is not a process that ends itself. Though the economic crisis of 2008 gave hope for a rever-sal similar to that following the Great Depression, there have been no signif icant changes in the course of neoliberal ism or the dominant centers of thought surrounding it. The phenomenon of merit scholar-ships seems only to be a sign of what more is to come for small l iberal arts colleges. If Kenyon is to main-tain any commitment to a notion of social justice, the question of how long we strive to remain competit ive before we f ight back wil l have to be answered.

In recent years, merit aid has increasingly appro-priated from college budgets for need-based aid. The effects of this have been profound; in 2005, a team of researchers led by Ronald Ehrenberg found a high correlation between levels of institutional merit aid and a loss in enrollment of lower class students. To make matters worse, merit aid is increasingly awarded for reasons other than student achievement, namely for family wealth. To compete with other schools for students who can pay full tuit ion, many colleges are awarding merit aid to lure wealthy famil ies. Former President S. Georgia Nugent recently stated, “Fi-nancial aid available to the lowest–income students has plummeted, and f inancial aid to the highest has soared.”

Kenyon and many other l iberal arts colleges have not been immune to this change. On the contrary, they have been on the cusp of these changes. With smaller endowments and greater dependency on tu-it ion revenue, schools l ike Kenyon compete for stu-dents who can pay by awarding tuit ion discounts. As journalist Stephen Burd said recently, “Either a school offers tuit ion discounts to students from aff luent famil ies, or else those students (and the

revenue they could provide) wind up going to oth-er institutions that offer similar or more generous discounts.” These “tuit ion discounts” are offered as merit scholarships. The end result? More aff irmative action for the wealthy, in both acceptance rates and in merit scholarships awards.

As though matters could not get any worse, low-er class students who do receive merit scholarships reap no benefits for their added efforts; al l merit aid awarded to f inancial–aid dependent students is taken out of their need–based f inancial aid package. Imag-ine, for example, that two students are accepted to a college which charges a tuit ion of $40,000. Student A is able to pay full tuit ion and is awarded a $10,000 merit–aid package. Student B is unable to pay full tuit ion and has an estimated family contribution of $30,000, meaning the college would l ikely offer the student $10,000 in need–based aid. However, Stu-dent B also receives a $10,000 merit aid package.

Both students wil l pay $30,000 in tuit ion. The stu-dent from the lower class family is awarded the same amount of aid as though he or she had been awarded no merit scholarship at al l. The merit aid is taken directly out of his or her need–based aid. While

Reagan Academics

COnRAD JACOBeR

6

“Sheer ability, spelled i-n-h-e-r-i-t-a-n-c-e.” malcolm Forbes

7

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Krishnamurti

tKO

“thoUgh i wish the ProbleMs Kenyon PerPetUates were as easily fixable as a change in adMinistration, oUr college is only following the logic necessary to coMPete with siMilar institUtions: the log-ic of caPital.”

“with sMaller endowMents and greater dePendency on tUition revenUe, schools liKe Kenyon coMPete for stUdents who can Pay by awarding tU-ition discoUnts.”

THE NEOLIBERALIzATION OF COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

crimes were known, merited the opposit ion of any conscientious nation or individual. But whenever a country combats one repressive regime by support-ing another repressive regime, that country cannot hope to have any claim to meaningful moral author-ity. Besides committ ing a moral transgression, the U.S. government also fai led to real ize that it was overtly supporting a regime that denied the fore-most ideals of American l iberal ism and representa-t ive government, al l while refusing to offer a hand to a man who represented the best chance for intro-ducing democratic freedom to South Africa.

Furthermore, what was lost in al l of the vitriol is that Mandela was anything but a hardl ine Com-munist. As a matter of fact, he def ied the general wil l of his party on mult iple occasions in order to seek peace, and described himself as a “democratic social ist.” If anything, Mandela should have been embraced by al l Americans al ike. He was an ardent supporter of true democracy, because that was the only means of abolishing the grossly unjust elect ion system which had taken hold in South Africa. An essay by Mandela, published on Sep. 24, 1953 is t i-t led “Towards Democratic Unity.” The essay, which can be found on the website of the African National Congress, aff irms that democracy was the solution to oppression in his country. In the statement he gave at the famous 1964 Rivonia Trial, Mandela said “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which al l persons wil l l ive together in harmony and with equal opportunit ies. It is an ideal which I hope to l ive for. But, my lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Final ly, in his 1995 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, he wrote, “The victory of democracy in South Af-rica is the common achievement of al l humanity.” These three pieces of evidence alone confirm his credentials as a democrat.

It would, of course, be grossly unreal ist ic to ar-gue that the American far right was solely respon-sible for perpetuating the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the imprisonment of black South Afri-cans within their own country, and I do not intend to make this claim. The system of apartheid was implemented by white leaders in South Africa, and survived as easi ly during the tenure of Democratic Presidents (Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Carter) as during those of Repub-l ican Presidents (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Rea-gan). However, I come down as harshly as I do on Mandela’s conservative crit ics of the 1980s because

widespread American support could have made a substantial difference, and also because, at that t ime, support of the apartheid regime as a buffer against Communism was rapidly becoming an ob-solete just if icat ion. In 1986—the same year Reagan

vetoed sanctions against South Africa—Mikhail Gorbachev began implementing his pol icy of per-estroika (“restructuring”) which reformed and l ib-eral ized the government of the Soviet Union. The excuse of protecting American interests—a rather poor one to begin with—had very nearly run its course. This is yet another fact which points to the error of those who opposed freedom for Mandela; in short, these conservative commentators should have known better.

The image of Nelson Mandela as one of the great-est moral leaders in world history—and one of the great democrats—will far outl ive him. Praise of his many exceptional characterist ics has overwhelmed the few negative crit icisms, and wil l continue to do so. So if history is safely on Mandela’s side, what is the point in taking to task those among our ranks who once opposed him? Some wil l be quick to point out, quite justly, that someone l ike myself who was not yet al ive at the t ime has no place crit icizing some of those who were, when he has the benefit of twenty years’ hindsight. Beyond that, it would be rather hubrist ic of me to assume that my personal approval of Nelson Mandela should be the sole rea-son for defending him retrospectively.

Nevertheless, I bel ieve there is a benefit to be gained by evoking the memory of past injust ice, and that is to heighten our sensit ivity to future injus-t ice. Although I wil l not make any concrete recom-mendations regarding world leaders or regimes, I do know that our unique posit ion of global inf luence bears with it the obligat ion of vigi lance over the corners of the world where another Mandela-l ike f igure labors in obscurity. For the t ime being, and for as long into the future as we are a world super-power, we ought to remember that some Americans al lowed themselves to be fooled into opposing Man-dela. We should also remember the danger of with-holding support from those who most vigorously embody American ideals abroad and who need our help most.

9

At the t ime of his death last month, Nelson Man-dela was probably the most widely revered l iving statesman on the planet, to such an extent that The Onion’s art icle t it led “Nelson Mandela Becomes First Polit ician To Be Missed” was only part ial ly sat irical. So I was surprised to discover that some individuals had negative, and even thoroughly un-kind, things to say about him in the aftermath of his passing.

What I discovered after becoming aware of these attacks was that the United States was not, at al l t imes, an ardent al ly of Mr. Mandela. According to an art icle by Matt Gertz in Media Matters for Ameri-ca, President Ronald Rea-gan vetoed a resolution in 1986 that would have im-posed sanctions on South Africa if it did not agree to, among other terms, free-dom for Mandela. Meanwhile, columnist George Wil l and public intel lectual Wil l iam F. Buckley, Jr.—perhaps the most prominent conservative com-mentator in American history—expressed intense opposit ion to any such bil l. As Gertz points out, the American right of the 1980s was no friend to Mandela and his sympathizers, and members of the movement “ult imately determined that end-ing [apartheid] was less important that preserving

South Africa as an al ly in the Cold War.” Essential ly, American conservatives considered

sol idarity with Mandela a betrayal of the exist ing regime, which, while pathological ly racist and dis-criminatory, had for many years been a loyal al ly in the global f ight against Communism and contin-ued to serve as a countering force against Soviet inf luence in Africa. Add to this that his personal associat ions with some elements of left ist ideol-ogy were poorly received by those same crusaders against Communism—even to this day, Mandela’s

party (the African National Congress) counts the South African Communist Par-ty (SACP) as an al ly. This ideological opposit ion is perfectly in keeping with American foreign policy throughout the years—we have habitual ly supported horrid regimes in order to

combat the Communist specter. Among other mis-deeds, in 1973 the CIA orchestrated an overthrow of the democratical ly-elected Marxist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and in 1979, we pro-vided arms to the Tal iban in order to stymie the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union, part icularly under the dicta-torship of Joseph Stal in, was frequently a repressive and violent regime which, to the extent which its

In Spite of Us

Alex PIJAnOWSKI

“What does an actor know about politics?“ Ronald Reagan

tKO

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy.” mandela

8

“Mandela was anything bUt a hardline coMMUnist.”

HOW THE AMERICAN RIGHT FAILED TO SUPPORTSOUTH AFRICA’S GREATEST DEMOCRAT

“President ronald reagan ve-toed a resolUtion in 1986 that woUld have iMPosed sanctions on soUth africa if it did not agree to, aMong other terMs, freedoM for Mandela.”

“Let man keep his many parts and you’ll have no tyrant states.” Ralph ellison

10 11

GABRIel ROm

On Monday October 28, former New York City Po-lice Commissioner Ray Kelly was scheduled to speak at Brown University. He hardly got past “Hello.” In an auditorium with standing-room only, a group of over one hundred protesters disrupted Kelly’s talk until it was aborted. One after another, they stood up, took out pieces of paper, recited statements, sung spoken verse, chanted, cheered and jeered.

Eventually, a lone voice from the back of the audito-rium called out, “Let the man speak!” There was a brief, almost ashamed silence, and then a handclap or two. As if on cue, a protester stood up and pointed his finger at the suits on stage: “This pig’s policies oppress our people and shut us down!” Applause. “Well we’re here to shut you down! This is not civil discourse.” Applause. “You gunna bring the Gestapo here next?” Applause. “Who is the terrorist? You are the terrorist!” Applause.

A young man in the audience, his arms folded across his chest, pleaded with the protesters, “You all have a voice. You have the spark of social injustice and aware-ness, that’s why you’re here today and you’re angry for a good reason. But your volume and your inability to listen has quieted my voice and people that want to hear Ray Kelly.” A chorus, bitter and unforgiving, drowned him out. “Anybody that has a problem with protesters speaking is just part of the problem. They’re not part of the solution. So go now.” Applause.

From the perspective of the protesters, if someone wanted to hear Kelly, never mind agree with him, they

became the enemy. This view is protest as censorship and it represents a world of absolutes: It’s our way or the highway. If you disagree, you’re no better than the fascist Kelly himself. You’re a revolutionary or a reactionary, a fighter or a coward. The Brown protesters challenged a policy that is nothing more than legislated white supremacy drawn up by an unrepentant white supremacist. Disagree? Sit down and shut up like a good activist ought to.

There is a shrill fanaticism behind such moral righ-teousness and yet it resists critique because those who question the protester’s methods are reflexively cast on the side of evil. The protesters see discourse itself as nothing more than a bourgeois defense of the status quo. Since they conceive of themselves as “simply right” and Kelly as “simply wrong,” discussion becomes a ratio-nalization for oppression – and merits invective, rather than argument. According to this logic, one cannot support some aspects of Stop and Frisk and protest oth-ers. A moderate is reduced to a stiff-necked shill for op-pression. Debate and discourse get in the way of perfect justice.

Doreen Saint-Brown, one of the protest’s leaders, wrote in a piece for the Guardian newspaper that “pro-test is discourse on the terms of the oppressed, and it takes a ‘disruption’ for marginalized communities to have their voices heard.” What Saint-Brown did not mention is that opinions on Stop and Frisk are by no means uniform, not even within the ethnic and lower class communities she supposedly speaks for.

According to a December 2013 amNewYork poll, 64 percent of Bronx residents believe that Stop and Frisk is “beneficial,” but needs to be “improved or modified.” Only 20 percent believed it should be outlawed. According to the same poll, 60 percent of black voters in New York support Stop and Frisk but similarly want it modified. In an August 2012 New York Times opinion poll, 48 per-cent of blacks and 58 percent of Hispanics approved of Ray Kelly and Michael Bloomberg. There is ample empirical evidence that the debate over Stop and Frisk is not over. It remains ongoing in the courts, in the me-dia, and on the streets. Why then is it being snuffed out at Brown?

What might the protesters say to these New York residents who see some value in the program? Their behavior would suggest something along the lines of, Hush now; you’re just living under false consciousness. We, the freedom fighters from Providence, know what’s really best for you. This line of thinking is not alien to the far-left. It has strong similarities to the Leninist view of the revolutionary van-guard whose goal is to make the ignorant op-pressed conscious of their oppression. There is a connection between ideological reeducation and the protesters, be-cause both groups are essentially reducing the individual to a political tool rather than a think-ing being. In the pro-testers’ quixotic quest for justice, variations in opinion — the distinctions that make people…people — are only obstacles to be overcome or annoyances to be ignored. C.S. Lewis put it well when he wrote, “to be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Is it in fact true that to choose discourse over ac-tion is to be complicit in injustice, as the protesters seem to believe? Consider the white moderates of the civil-rights era, or the collaborationist governments of pre-war Europe. It cannot be denied that some is-sues demand action and nothing less. As Ralph Ellison writes in Invisible Man, “Without the possibility of ac-tion, all knowledge comes to be labeled ‘file and forget,’ and I can neither file nor forget.” But when do we drop

the pen and pick up the gun? Where does that line get drawn? Consider if you tried debating an anti-abortion activist who refused to talk because they claimed inno-cent babies were being killed while you spoke. Beneath his fanaticism is a belief that dialogue legitimates injus-tice. The only difference between him and the Brown protesters is what he views as unjust.

Notwithstanding the foregoing justifications for radical action over discourse, the case of Stop and Frisk does not fit the bill. While we can’t expect the demo-cratic process to address every question of injustice, an unpopular and flawed policy is on an (admittedly slow) track to reform. In August, 2013 New York District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in a scathing 179-page report that Stop and Frisk was a “policy of indirect ra-cial profiling” and she offered an extensive list of re-forms. In October, an appeals court ruled that Scheind-lin’s impartiality was compromised and halted her

proposed modifications. In November the New York Attorney General released a report, calling Stop and Frisk “flawed,” and sought to “advance the discussion about how to fight crime with-out…violating equal justice under the law.” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has now prom-ised that he will drop the City’s appeals and reform the policy.

There is an essen-tial paragraph in Judge

Scheindlin’s ruling: “to be very clear: I am not ordering an end to the practices of Stop and Frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much-needed police protection.” The ruling gives a legal corroboration to the popular opinion that Stop and Frisk should be reformed but not done away with. The legality of the policy hinges on finding a bal-ance between police protection and the protection of individual rights.

The Brown protesters are tolerant in principle but not in practice. They believe in open minds and the ex-change of free ideas only when the exchange suits them. When it doesn’t, it ought to be stopped. This is a claim to force, not reason, and when debate is discarded the democratic machine grinds to a halt. It’s hard to find common ground when you are being yelled at.

“When force threatens, talk is no good anymore.” Ransom Stoddard

Ray Kelly, Brown University and Unchecked Privilege

tKO

“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” Ronald Reagan

Last November, the Chinese government announced reforms to its infamous One Child Policy (OCP), as well as changes to its re-education labor program. The for-mer, adopted in 1980 in an effort to curb rapid popu-lation growth, restricts families to one child, allowing exceptions for families in rural areas. It was believed that the policy would allow for more economic growth and reduce poverty. According to China’s government-run news agency, Xinhua, a couple with one or more members who were only children will now be allowed to have two children themselves. The government re-gards the policy as a success; according to Xinhua, it is estimated that 400 million births were evaded as a result, causing a reduction in population growth that is purportedly responsible for economic expansion and improved quality of life in recent years. The Chinese legislature decided to reform the policy, however, in light of changing demographics in China, which include a rapidly aging population. The government also hopes that the change in the policy will counteract such nega-tive side effects as growing gender imbalance; the Na-tional Bureau of Statistics reports that the birth ratio in China is 118 boys for every 100 girls, compared to the average worldwide birth ratio of about 106 boys for every 100 girls. Thus, through reforms, China hopes to achieve two objectives: encourage the births of more girls by allowing families to try again for a boy, and in-crease the size of future generations so they will be able to support an increasingly large aging population.

This shift in policy, however, is not the end of the Family Planning Commission, which enforces the laws

that dictate the number of children Chinese citizens are permitted. The Chinese government still has ev-ery intention of controlling the reproductive lives of their citizens. In a Nov. 12 article on Xinhua.net, Nan-kai University population studies professor Yuan Xin said, “Issues surrounding how many children a fam-ily can have will, for a long time, still be decided by the government rather than the family itself.” Though implemented to conserve natural resources and bolster economic growth, China’s mandatory family planning policies have led to gender and limitations on the liberty and privacy of its citizens, particularly women. While the change in policy provides some additional control for some families, it seems clear that the new reforms will not right the wrongs of the past.

Chinese government insists firmly that the OCP was necessary to curb population growth. However, when examined more closely, the birth rates over the past few decades suggest that the policy might might not have been necessary. China experienced its biggest drop in the fertility rate during the 1970s before the policy was implemented. Suggesting that government control over births is not necessary for significant decline in popula-tion growth. As, China modernized the economic pres-sures of having more children became greater and fami-lies naturally wanted to have less children. According to the Washington Post, the current fertility rate of 1.7 children per women is only expected to rise to 1.9 in the coming decades, inferring that limiting women to only one child has not made a major difference in the number of children born. Considering the high cost of

Reform? Or More of the Same?

JUlIA mCKAy

12

“Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” Abba eban

the policy, the gender imbalance and the loss of free-dom for the Chinese people, it is not clear the policy was worthwhile. The OCP put many under strict con-trols simply to expedite a natural process and the family planning commission will continue to do so only with one more child allotted each family.

The depth of this gender imbalance cannot be over-emphasized. Patriarchal tendencies and economic incen-tives are at the root of a desire for sons and a rejection of daughters, leading some to exercise measures such as sex-selective abortions. Though illegal, these abortions are believed to be the main cause of the skewed ratio. Not only is this trend dangerous and discriminatory, but it has a potentially disastrous impact on the popula-tion. Young men, for example, have difficulty finding wives because there are simply not enough women. The deficit of women disrupts traditional marriage practices and increases competition among men, who face pres-sure to gain higher wages and present themselves as more suitable husbands. Those who remain single grow old without a support system to act as a safety net in the long run.

Moreover, the OCP cre-ated dire consequences for families who had unexpected pregnancies and could not afford to pay the fines that came with having a second child. Wealthy families were often able to circumvent the law, paying fines or fly-ing to other countries to give birth. This exacerbated income inequality in an intangible way, as the policy hit poor families hardest. The fines required after having a second child vary by province, but according to a June article in the Economist, they can amount to between three and six times a family’s annual income. Needless to say, these “social maintenance fees” (SMFs) are sim-ply too much for many families, giving many women no choice but to abort. The Economist also estimates that the Chinese government has collected 2 trillion yuan ($314 billion) in SMFs since the policy’s implementation in 1980. The policy thus not only a way to restrict popu-lation growth but a source of revenue for the govern-ment, one that is ethically questionable given the fact that it is collected at the expense of China’s neediest citizens.

To complicate matters, the SMFs are handled by local officials in each province, increasing the likelihood and

occurrence of corruption. Officials are often allowed access to medical records of women in their jurisdiction to ensure they are complying with the law; this policing of women’s bodies allows the government to control an extremely personal aspect of their lives and subverts their right to their own bodies. Some women are even forced to have abortions and sterilizations, and stories of abuses by family planning officials have enraged the public. One woman, Feng Jianmei, was forced to have an abortion at seven months—well into her third tri-mester—because she could not afford the fines. Her story created international outrage and added signifi-cant pressure to reform the policy.

The independence and freedom to choose abortion or contraceptive methods such as sterilization are criti-cal to women’s reproductive health. And yet it is ap-parent that many women in China are denied these lib-

erties as they are often, instead, forced or bullied into them by the government. The Chinese health ministry reported that 336 million abortions and 22 million sterilizations have been performed in China since 1980. Would these numbers be so high if women had more control over their reproductive lives? Unfor-tunately, we won’t find out soon enough. Even if the OCP is lifted, government family plan-ning will remain in the Chinese Constitution. The only change implemented will be the number

of children some families are allowed to have. Women and their husbands will still not be able to make deci-sions about a crucial part of their lives.

The reforms to the OCP are a small step forward, but ultimately, the Chinese government has control over a major aspect of its citizens’ lives. Though the policy may have prevented the births of many infants, the prevention came at a high cost. Birth rates natu-rally decline as nations become more developed, sug-gesting that some of the drop in birth rate would have occurred naturally. Overpopulation is a major issue and will continue to be for years to come because of the strain it will continue to cause on the environment and natural resources. However, China’s method of dictat-ing the number of children is invasive, and unplanned pregnancy is never completely preventable. This fact makes punishing women and their families for having unplanned children unjust. Major changes need to be made before all the wrongs of the OCP are righted.

13

tKO

CHINA LIFTS THE ONE CHILD POLICY

“the governMent also hoPes that the change in the Policy will coUnteract sUch nega-tive side effects as growing gender iMbalance; the na-tional bUreaU of statistics rePorts that the birth ratio in china is 118 boys for every 100 girls.”

You know that big country just to the north of the United States? The one with the red maple leaf on its f lag? Well, imagine for a moment that instead of passionate hockey fans and polar temperatures, that country was actually known for Earl Grey and Big Ben. Imagine that every year, the people of Britain could watch us celebrate our victory in the Revolu-tionary War, and could watch the fireworks go off from right across the border.

Were that to suddenly become true today, given our current relationship with the United Kingdom, it would be a bit awkward at least. But let’s add an-other variable: what would this look like in, say, the year 1800?

If this sounds like a sce-nario that might easily dis-solve into chaos, your best evidence would likely be the current relationship between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. These two coun-tries, together on one piece of land and separated by a border that has proven tenuous at best, have clashed repeatedly over the course of the past couple centu-ries, stemming back to the invasion of the Domini-can Republic by the Haitian Army in 1822. A little more than 20 years later, Dominicans would finally celebrate their own Independence Day. As they con-tinue to celebrate that holiday to this day, the fragile country shows no sign of stopping its battle to ensure they retain that independence.

Last September, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic handed down a ruling in the case of Juliana Deguis Pierre, who wanted documen-

tation as a citizen but was turned down because her Haitian-Dominican parents were considered by the government not as citizens, but rather as “in transit.” Ruling against her, and effectively any Dominican of Haitian descent born in the country after 1929, has made stateless some 250,000 former citizens of the Dominican Republic. Many more are completely un-aware of their new status under the law.

Of all the questions posed by such a controversial and significant decision, the most obvious is simply: why? The evolving relationship between the Domini-can Republic and Haiti, specifically in terms of im-

migration, has seen tens of thousands of Haitians pour-ing into the DR every year, easily lured by the prospect of steady wages and living conditions that far surpass the current quality of life in Haiti. The only apparent ra-tionale for the decision can be traced back to an amend-ment to the Dominican Con-stitution in 2004. As reported

by the Nassau Guardian, this amendment extended the definition of “in transit” citizens to encompass not only diplomatic employees but also, “all persons who enter and remain in the Dominican Republic without proper documents.” Ruling against Ms. Pierre’s re-quest to obtain documentation effectively revived the question of who else may be entitled to such docu-ments, and has now left the Dominican government with the task of sorting out the rights to citizenship for a vast amount of its population.

The most immediate consequences have become clear in the three months since the court handed

In Transit, In Crisis

SAm WHIPPle

14

“A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.” Albert einstein

15

down its decision. The obvious and probably most widespread reaction has been confusion; the decision largely affects people who, despite their Haitian heri-tage, have lived and worked in the Dominican Re-public their entire lives, and who may have little or no ties whatsoever to neighboring Haiti. Still, while many have chosen to stay and try to battle their way through thickets of red tape to obtain proper citizen-ship, the Miami Herald has reported that Puerto Rico is already seeing cases of emigration attempts by Do-minicans arriving by boat.

The international response has been fairly wide-spread but, so far, ineffective. Organizations rang-ing from the United Nations to human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the Caribbean community’s own regional body, CARICOM, have spoken out against the Dominican Republic’s actions. They’ve declared the court’s decision to be one of the most sweeping and devastating blows to collective citizenship rights in recent years. The Venezuelan government has also taken steps to facilitate dialogue between Dominican and Haitian officials, but as the case cannot be appealed, no direct resolution to the problem seems clear. Dominican officials have stated that they will try to give temporary work visas to Hai-tian-Dominicans in the interim, but this is hardly a permanent solution. As long one is of Haitian origin, this “in transit” status could become a fact of his or her life.

Yet, of course, Haitian descent is only part of the story. The hot water in which the Dominican Republic currently finds itself has been brought to a boil by issues ranging from economics to full-on murder. The sugar cane fields on which many Hai-tian-Dominicans have worked or continue to work, called bateyes, represent one of the main sources of profit for the Dominican Republic, and yet this rul-ing would deport thousands of the very workers on whom they’ve depended for trade since the 1920s. These are people who chose to stay in the Domini-can Republic even after their own dictator ordered a massacre of Haitians in 1937. As tourism continues to f lourish on the Dominican side of the border, the government will be interested in controlling violence, which may prove difficult as more people are buf-feted by the process of obtaining the citizenship they believed they already had.

Adding to the confusion are ever-present un-dercurrents of race. Haitians typically have darker skin than Dominicans and, as public officials comb

through stacks of birth records, it seems all too likely that those of darker skin will be profiled as Haitians. This could lead to an increase in the number of ap-plications for citizenship,

As for now, the walls seem to be closing in for many who live, internally exiled, in the Dominican Republic. Progress from the Haitian-Dominican talks remains stagnant, and the only recent resolution from their discussions has been to close all but a few of the border crossings between the two countries to allow Haitians to profit further off import tariffs. As the backlog of citizenship requests continues to build in the Dominican legislature, many are also likely un-aware of their new status, and thus will have to wait in line to get a chance at reinstating their status as Dominican citizens.

The international community has taken the appro-priate response, but limbo is still the prevailing state of affairs. Condemnations will not be good enough. Hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in a country that they only believe to be their home be-cause the government will recognize it as such. There should be no issue of clarity here: the actions taken by the Dominican High Court amount to a genocide of identity, leaving much of the Dominican population without a home, a country, and or a desire to leave the place they have called home for so long.

Let’s go back to the analogy we made with the United States. While we don’t share a border with Britain, we do share one with a nation whose deal-ings with the United States are far more emblematic of the struggles faced by the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Mexico and the United States, too, have been wrestling with immigration policy for decades. The latest iteration of an immigration reform bill, which might address the growing number of children who have grown up in the US despite improper documen-tation, has yet to be brought before the House. As reform continues to stall here at home, the crisis in the Dominican Republic should remind us of the enormous consequences of statelessness and of the tragedy faced by people across the globe who want nothing more than to live and work in a place they are familiar with. Both in the U.S. and the Dominican Republic, immigrants from all countries and cultures have lived and grown in a place they believe they can call their home, and for the time being, the Domini-can Government should revise its policies to make sure those people can continue to call it home for years to come.

“There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.” Ralph nader

tKO

“rUling against her, and ef-fectively any doMinican of haitian descent born in the coUntry after 1929, has Made stateless soMe 250,000 for-Mer citizens of the doMini-can rePUblic.”

CITIzENSHIP IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Ryan Mach ShaReS hiS PickS foR

The 2014 acadeMy awaRdS

Best Picture: “Gravity”

This film is significant this year chiefly because of its use of intensely mesmerizing visual effects. What will undoubtedly earn it the Oscar nod, however, is its tantalizing imagining of a world in which Sandra Bullock is sent deep into space without any way of contacting other human beings.

Best Actor: Christian Bale in “American Hustle” and Matthew McConaughey in“Dallas Buyer’s Club”

The choice is a toss-up this year: it all comes down to whether or not the Academy is more impressed with actors who gain unhealthy amounts of weight to play a role or actors who lose unhealthy amounts of weight to play a role. More importantly, it comes down to the fact that no one knows how to pro-nounce “Chiwetel Ejiofor.”

Best Actress: Meryl Streep in “August: Osage County”

There is no earthly precedent for the human anomaly that is Meryl Streep. Her name and person shall breathe the eternal truth to the goodly part of each and every soul even ere her pristine mortal shell hath passed. We shalt not put any actress before Streep, for Streep is a jealous actress, visiting the iniquities of Academy members upon the third and fourth generation, but showing steadfast love to the hundreds of those who actually saw “August: Osage County.”

Best Supporting Actor: Jonah Hill in “The Wolf of Wall Street”

There is no actor in Hollywood today who better deserves this honor, having completed the storied transition from “boy-man who masturbates in his parents’ house” to “man-boy who masturbates in a multi-million dollar Hamptons mansion.”

Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Lawrence “American Hustle”

Following such greats as Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway, the young actress will be the latest in a line of stars to be beloved by the greater American female population only to be suddenly and arbitrarily despised by it.

Best Animated Feature Film: “The Croods”

In this reviewer’s opinion, it is inconceivable how this film did not receive a nomination for best pic-ture – you know what, fuck that, this is a bullshit Oscar season. This movie had heart, a lot more heart than that stupid “Nebraska” had. Are you fucking kidding me? You’ll put on a piece of trash in black and white starring MacGruber, but you stick up your goddamn nose at “Croods?” Have you people ever heard of Nicolas Cage, for Christ’s sake? No? Well how about Emma Stone? Up and coming su-perstar? Ring any bells? Does that mean anything to you, you snooty, heartless, ivory tower imbeciles?