WUPR Issue 21.4: The Politics of Sports

Washington University

politicalreview21.4 | December 2014 | wupr.org

THE POLITICS OF

SPORTS

2

YoUr iDeaS Here

SenD YoUr iDeaS to [email protected]

wuPr IS aLwayS

aCCEPTIng SubmISSIOnS FrOm

waSHIngTOn unIvErSITy

undErgraduaTES.

3

Dear Reader,

American society often regards sports as an idealized form of human interaction. Practice makes perfect, quitters never win, there’s no “I” in “team,”—the endless list of sports clichés reveals how much value we place on fair athletic competition. Middle schoolers who fail to make the cut for their school basketball team are consoled by parents who tell them that Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. Children around the world dream of being scouted by prestigious soccer teams, who could instantly pluck them from obscurity and turn them into global stars.

But the reality of sports is much more complex and, often, disheartening. Professional sports, and increasingly amateur sports as well, are gigantic industries. That in and of itself isn’t necessarily a problem, until it leads to rampant corruption, performance-enhancing drug abuse, or widespread cheating. The National Football League (NFL) has recently been racked by scandal after scandal, particularly ones involving acts of violence committed by its athletes and the horrifying health problems faced by its retired players. Meanwhile, the NFL, like other American and international sports federations, reports record profits from corporate sponsorship and TV broadcast rights.

In this edition of WUPR, The Politics of Sports, our writers have delved into the thorniest issues of global athletic competition. Leading off, Brian Leibowitz explores the current and historical importance of professional soccer in Spain’s fractious regional politics. Later, Chloe Naguib and Lindsey Wanberg investigate a correlation between national team success and presidential popularity, and Ben Compall assesses the state of diversity in American sports. Also in this issue we have an exclusive interview with economist Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute.

We welcome you to join our discussion of these and other issues by submitting your feedback and your original article ideas to [email protected].

With best regards,

Gabriel Rubin and Sonya Schoenberger

Editors-in-Chief

eDitorS’ noteEditors-in-Chief: Gabriel Rubin

Sonya Schoenberger

Executive director: Nahuel Fefer

Staff Editors: Henry Kopesky

Billie Mandelbaum

Aryeh Mellman

Features Editor: Grace Portelance

director of design: Alex Chiu

assistant directors of design: Simin Lim

Andrew Kay

director of new media: Ari Moses

Programming director: Hannah Waldman

Finance director: Alex Beaulieu

Front Cover: Andrew Kay

Theme Page: Andrew Kay

back Cover: Andrew Kay

4

taBle oF contentSFC barcelona vs. real madrid: athletic rivalry or Political Tool?

Brian Leibowitz

boston Strong: Commercializing TraumaRachel Butler

In baseball we Trust Grace Portelance

an Old Pastime Perseveres

Benjamin Szanton

minor Leaguers Have rights, Too

Alex Griffel

Collective bargaining is not a Spectator Sport

Samuel Klein

Private Spaces, Publicly FundedAlex Leichenger

minority representation in american Sports

Simin Lim

do Sports wins Equal Political wins?Chloe Naguib and Lindsey Wanberg

State of the gamesRueben Siegman

remembering Jackie robinson: racial Equality in SportsBen Compall

Sporty Presidents Grace Portelance and Simin Lim

Exploiting the SherpasBillie Mandelbaum

racism in European SoccerMax Handler

The return of the repressed inyemenAaron Christensen

Tainted by the nobel Gabriel Rubin

The Shadow of the wall Katherin Surko

In Conversation with Economist alex brillNahuel Fefer

Politicizing the Surgeon general Ruby Arora

The Problem with “It’s 2014”Aaron Wildavsky

medical marijuana is a FarceJoe Lenoff

SPORTS

INTERNATIONAL

NATIONAL

6

8

9

10

12

13

14

16

18

20

21

22

24

25

26

28

29

30

32

33

34

5

political review | SportS

6


M és que un club, reads FC Barcelona’s

team motto, signifying that it is more

than just a club soccer team. But what

exactly is “more”? Throughout Spanish history,

the bitter rivalry between the great teams

of Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, popularly

known as El Clásico, has been symbolic of the

political divisions on the Iberian peninsula.

Most recently, FC Barcelona has been used as a

means to express the desire of many Catalans

to secede from Spain. With the secession of

Catalonia becoming increasingly realistic, the

question of the fate of FC Barcelona in the

Spanish soccer association La Liga remains.

The Spanish capital city of Madrid is more

than just Spain’s geographical center; Madrid

is the center of Spanish culture, language, and

government. It was from Madrid that a unitary

government emanated when the Nationalists,

led by Francisco Franco, took control of the

country in 1939. As the fascist leader of the

Nationalists, Franco’s goal was to unify the

Spanish state into a close-knit people with a

single culture, just as Ferdinand and Isabella

had done centuries prior. His greatest obstacles

were regional dissenters; the Catalans,

in particular, often led violent campaigns

against the Franco regime. In order to quell

the separatist spirit of the Catalans, Franco

became an adamant supporter of the club

team Real Madrid. It wasn’t long before Real

Madrid became known as not just Franco’s

team, but Spain’s team. In essence, to root

against Real Madrid was to root against Spain,

especially when Real played its greatest rival,

FC Barcelona.

The advantages brought about by Franco’s

support did not stop there, however. It was

no surprise that in the early 1950’s both Real

Madrid and FC Barcelona sought to sign

world-famous forward Alfredo Di Stéfano

to their teams. FC Barcelona made the first

move, reaching a deal with Di Stéfano’s

team, River Plate, to acquire the player for a

large sum of money. However, Franco was

displeased with the prospect of an improved

Barcelona team. Hoping to rescind the deal

and force negotiations between Madrid and

Di Stéfano, Franco influenced the chief scout

of River Plate’s rival team to undermine the

negotiation. FIFA, the international soccer

association, strongly rejected this interference

and called for the clubs to follow through with

the trade to FC Barcelona. Franco subsequently

retaliated by enacting a law that forbade

the signing of foreign players by teams in La

Liga. Compromising with FIFA, the Spanish

government agreed to alternate Di Stéfano on

an annual basis between Real Madrid and FC

Barcelona. However, Barcelona’s management

was displeased with the compromise, given

that they had already paid a sizable initial fee

when Di Stéfano was originally traded. In the

end, though, FC Barcelona’s management

surrendered their rights to Di Stéfano, asking

only for a reimbursement of their original

payment in return. Di Stéfano went on to be a

legendary player, winning eight titles and five

European Cups for Real Madrid.

The origins of the rivalry between FC Barcelona

and Real Madrid can be summed up in one

word: regionalism. Under Franco’s rule,

speaking a tongue other than Castilian Spanish

or holding a regional flag was punishable

by imprisonment. Club soccer games were

seen as an opportunity to rebel against these

oppressive laws. It was there that Catalans

could speak their native Catalan, celebrate

their regional heritage, and taunt Franco’s

pet soccer team. Regional protest became so

ingrained in soccer culture that booing Real

Madrid as it traveled around the country was

among the most widespread forms of protest

among Catalans.

Still, Franco sought silent acceptance of his

regime. He used soccer as a means to focus the

people’s attention away from politics, toward

something more tangible. By creating this

culture of evasion, Franco sought to distract

mistreated lower-class workers from the stress

of their daily lives and to focus their energy

and passions on soccer. It was no wonder

that Franco looked so embarrassed when he

personally handed over La Liga’s championship

trophy, the Copa del Rey, to FC Barcelona

following their defeat of Real Madrid in 1968.

While winning titles is an integral goal of both

Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, it is difficult

to argue that either team experiences any

greater thrill than a victory in El Clásico. The

Fc Barcelona vS. real MaDriD: atHletic rivalrY or political tool?Brian Leibowitz | Photo by Alejandro Ramos May 2009

7


competition between the two is the epitome

of a rivalry, and a sour one at that. Fights are

commonplace and expected at almost any

game between the two teams. Fans of each

team are passionate about their club, not to

mention the greater message that their support

represents. Supporting FC Barcelona is seen

as supporting the Catalonian independence

movement while supporting Real Madrid is

seen as supporting the unity of Spain. Even

Spanish media feeds the passions of the public

by putting down the rival teams. The word

“morbo” has even been created to describe

the tension between fans of the rival teams.

Morbo translates to bitterness, or more closely

a mutual hatred between both the players and

the fans of the two teams.

Many have questioned the fate of FC Barcelona

were Catalonia to secede from Spain. Would it

continue to be able to play in La Liga or would

it be the end of El Clásico? In October 2014,

this question was answered when La Liga chief

Javier Tebas issued a statement saying that FC

Barcelona would be prohibited from continuing

to play in La Liga if Catalonia were to secede..

In order for FC Barcelona to play after a Catalan

secession, there would have to be a change

in law issued by the Spanish government,

a move which seems unlikely based on the

government’s historically unsympathetic

approach to dealing with questions of Catalan

autonomy. Whether or not Tebas’ statement

was serious is up to interpretation, as it seems

unlikely that anyone with a business interest in

La Liga would be pleased by the removal of its

most exciting competition.

Even after the death of Franco, Catalans

feel mistreated by the Spanish government

in Madrid. While Spain is known for having

serious economic problems and is a threat to

the financial stability of the European Union,

Catalonia has remained relatively prosperous;

in fact, Catalonia is the most economically

successful region of the Spanish state. Catalans

find it difficult to share this prosperity with the

rest of Spain. They feel no desire to help out

poorer regions that disrespect their culture

and mock their language. Catalonia wants to

secede for many reasons, but at the heart of

this desire is the fact that the government in

Madrid does not accept the Catalonian lifestyle

as a part of the Spanish identity. Economically,

Catalans strongly reject the burden of high tax

revenues placed on them by the government

in Madrid in hopes of subsidizing the rest of

Spain. Until Madrid learns to accept Catalans

as an integral part of Spanish culture, they

will feel no strong urge to remain a part of the

Spanish state.

Officially, FC Barcelona has remained neutral

on the question of Catalan secession, but its

recent uniform redesign to a red and yellow

reference to the Catalan flag was widely seen

as a profoundly political statement. Supporters

of the Catalan independence movement have

since applauded the team for remaining true to

its region’s principles.

The best example of FC Barcelona’s

involvement with the independence movement

took place during the El Clásico game of

October 7, 2012. Holding a well-known

mosaic design, reconfigured to represent

the Catalonian flag, fans demonstrated their

support for the independence movement.

Following the passage of 17 minutes and 14

seconds in each half, fans shouted chants of

“independencia,” in reference to the last time

that Catalonia was independent, 1714. Whether

or not FC Barcelona wants to take an official

stance on the question of independence, its

fans certainly use the team as a tool to express

their own stance on the issue.

On November 9, an unofficial vote took place

in order to assess whether or not Catalonian

independence is supported by a majority of the

region. While this vote is not a legally-binding

referendum, the leader of the independence

movement, Artur Mas, stated that the results

of the vote would guide the Catalonian

independence movement in the future. The

results were decisive, to say the least: over two

million Catalans participated out of 5.4 million

eligible voters and 80% of voters favored

independence. Mas has remained adamant

that he will continue to fight for independence

after receiving this vote of confidence. Fans

have no choice but to wait in horror for the

future of La Liga and its greatest rivalry.

Brian Leibowitz is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

Catalonia wants to secede for several reasons, but at the heart of this desire, is the fact that the government in Madrid does not accept the Catalonian lifestyle as a part of the Spanish identity.

8


W hen you type the words “Boston

Strong” into Google, the first results

that pop up are t-shirts for sale.

With an $11.98 kids’ version, a $19.99 variation

sporting the Boston Bruins logo, and a $25

iteration with the Boston skyline on the front,

the Boston Strong t-shirt has become ubiquitous

in Boston and beyond.

The phrase “Boston Strong” emerged in the

immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon

bombings almost two years ago, on April 15,

2013. The slogan had its roots on Twitter, and

its popularity quickly grew; even the city’s

sports teams were quick to pick up on the

slogan. The Bruins displayed the phrase on their

helmets at the game on April 17, two days after

the bombings, and the words were emblazoned

on the Green Monster wall at the Red Sox’s

Fenway Park. That same day, two vendors

submitted separate trademark registration

applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office, seeking to obtain ownership of the

“Boston Strong” slogan for use on commercial

products. The trademarks weren’t approved,

but nevertheless the slogan has become a huge

commercial success, with vendors hawking

variations of it all over the city of Boston.

Many phrases that enter the public

consciousness are quickly commercialized—

products emblazoned with the terms “YOLO,”

“swag,” “selfie,” and the omnipresent hashtag

have generated millions, if not billions, of

dollars in revenue. However, the “Boston

Strong” slogan is much more emotionally

charged than most of these terms, considering

the terrorism and trauma that gave rise to it.

Capitalizing on the bombings seems crass

considering their recentness and the ongoing

suffering of many victims and their families.

Yet the fact that there is enough demand to

make selling the merchandise lucrative is more

concerning, as the buyers’ possible motives are

questionable. Has “Boston Strong” become a

trendy, trivial catchphrase not unlike the chorus

of YOLOS and swags which also rose to fame

on Twitter? That seems to be one motive of

Boston Strong consumers; in the wake of the

bombings, wearing a t-shirt with the slogan

was simply the trendy thing to do.

Another apparent motive for Boston Strong

buyers is the slogan’s connection to Boston’s

sports teams. The most common manifestation

of the shirt incorporates the Red Sox “B” logo

above the word “strong,” as if the Red Sox

organization were sponsoring the city’s attempt

to recover from terrorism. This is true, in a

sense – the Red Sox organization has donated

hundreds of thousands of dollars to the One

Fund, which distributes money to the victims

of the bombings and their families. However,

the MLB also makes a profit off of its Boston

Strong merchandise: for $349.99 (plus shipping

and handling), you can buy a baseball inscribed

with the Boston Strong slogan by David Ortiz

himself, with no proceeds going to the One

Fund. Other Boston associations have been

quick to follow suit – you can now buy Boston

Strong products featuring any and all Boston

sports teams’ logos, most of which are sold

totally for-profit (though not all are sold directly

by the leagues). When a consumer buys

products that link the phrase to a sports team’s

logo, he or she supports the sports team rather

than commemorating a tragedy – there might

as well be a “Red Sox,” “Celtics” or “Bruins”

inserted between “Boston” and Strong.”

What makes this equation of Boston

Strong with Boston sports so commercially

successful is in part the fact that the slogan’s

connection to the city’s teams has gone beyond

merchandising; it has become a rallying cry

of the teams themselves. At their first game

following the bombings, the Red Sox wore

special jerseys emblazoned only with the word

“Boston,” rather then the usual “Red Sox,”

suggesting that the team represented the city

itself when it played the Kansas City Royals

that day (luckily, the Sox won). The team also

hung a Boston Strong jersey on the dugout, and

wore “B Strong” patches on their uniforms for

the remainder of the season. Many members

of the team and its fans credited the Sox’s

subsequent World Series win to the inspiring,

rallying effect of the marathon bombings.

It added a depth of meaning to the win, for

fans and players alike. To celebrate, fans

congregated at the site of the marathon finish

line where the bombings occurred; the Red Sox

even arranged their victory parade so that it

would pause at that spot.

Sports teams are, undoubtedly, deeply

connected to their home cities. The Red Sox’s

responses to the tragedy and their fans’ linking

of their win to a sense of citywide recovery

are natural in the context of the team’s

deep-rooted attachment to Boston’s culture

and history. However, capitalizing on that

attachment for commercial gains is wrong, and

selling a t-shirt that combines a team’s logo

with the phrase Boston Strong cheapens the

slogan by separating it almost completely from

its traumatic beginnings.

BoSton Strong: coMMercializing traUMa

Rachel Butler is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sci-ences. She can be reached at [email protected].

Rachel Butler

When one buys products that link the phrase to a sports team’s logo, one seems to be supporting the sports team rather than commemorating a tragedy— there might as well be a “Red Sox,” “Celtics” or “Bruins” inserted between “Boston” and “Strong.”

9


C ompetitive markets and baseball are

two things that are quintessentially

American—though not everyone loves

them, they occupy a huge cultural space

in our society. However, these two cultural

staples have historically been at odds – since

the inception of anti-trust laws, baseball has

enjoyed a strange and unique exemption.

In fact, one could argue that Major League

Baseball is the only true monopoly in the

history of our country. Despite this gross

violation of our economic identity as

Americans, nobody seems to care. America’s

favorite pastime doesn’t adhere to America’s

favorite rules.

Anti-trust laws came into existence in the

late 1800s, during a time when big business

flourished to the detriment of competition.

In essence, these laws characterized the

Progressive Era, in which actions that could

lead to excessive market control were limited.

While the government addressed smaller

issues such as collusion and cartelization,

arguably the harshest penalties - including the

breaking up of businesses, fines, and jail time

–were levied against those who attempted to

monopolize a market . Teddy Roosevelt, who

was nicknamed a “trust buster”, argued to

Congress that “once it is realized that business

monopoly in America paralyzes the system

of free enterprise on which it is grafted, and is

as fatal to those who manipulate it as to the

people who suffer beneath its impositions,

action by the government to eliminate these

artificial restraints will be welcomed by

industry throughout the nation”.

If monopolies are so un-American, how can

one exist in baseball?

The structure of Major League Baseball is

most fascinating in that it hardly differs from

any other professional sport, yet is allowed

to operate outside of the restrictions all other

industries face. The reasoning behind this

exemption is clear but inane—the courts have

repeatedly ruled that baseball is a game, not

a business, and therefore does not count as

interstate commerce. However, even those

who know nothing about baseball can see

that baseball is definitely a business, at least

as much as any other professional sport.

There are billions of dollars in play, broadcast

and merchandise deals, and clear interstate

business activity. Seeing baseball as nothing

but a game has created an entirely different

set of rules, rules that do not just violate anti-

monopoly ideals, but actively detract from

the game. Because of the existence of the

monopoly, teams within the league are allowed

to be very restrictive: a team cannot be created

without approval from existing teams, nor can

an existing team move to a more lucrative home

without league approval. Further, no new league

can be created to compete with Major League

Baseball. This provides a huge limitation to the

evolution and improvement of baseball; after all,

if competition leads to creation, then monopoly

leads to stagnation. The MLB is a largely

unchallenged, unregulated monopoly, and no

one is doing anything about it.

The government’s reaction to the obvious

baseball monopoly is best characterized as a

lack of willingness from either Congress or the

courts to take action. While both seem to be

well aware of the existence of the monopoly

(the violation of anti-trust laws in baseball has

been brought to the federal stage a handful

of times in the 20th century), these branches

of government seem comfortable only to

chip away at monopoly power, not actually

prevent it. In 1953, the case Toolson vs. New

York challenged the reserve clause in the MLB,

which preceded free agency as a system of

dealing with players after contracts expire.

Though the reserve system, in which teams

had complete control over players after their

contracts end, was eventually abolished, in

this specific case the courts refused to reverse

baseball’s anti-trust exemption and notably

passed the ball to Congress, with the majority

opinion stating, “If there are evils in this field

which now warrant application of it to the

antitrust laws, it should be by legislation.”

Congress did not take action, and from then on

the exemption has stood, largely unchallenged

for the past 30 years.

In the case of Major League Baseball, the

courts and Congress have accepted precedent

and refused to revisit the corporate status

of baseball, despite the fact that over time it

has become clearer and clearer that baseball

is not just a game, but a huge, monopolizing

business. It is time that baseball doesn’t just

follow the rules that every other corporation

must follow, but also follows the rules that

every professional sport must adhere to.

Baseball is a game, but it is also a business,

and should be treated as such both to promote

consistency in application of our most

fundamental business laws, and to allow the

game to flourish in a truly free market.

in BaSeBall we trUSt

Grace Portelance is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected]

Grace Portelance | Photo from Wikicommons Media

10


an olD paStiMe perSevereSBenjamin Szanton | Infographic by Simin Lim

A s with global temperatures or the

cost of college tuition, a graph of TV

viewership of the World Series presents

a consistently ominous trend over the past

20 years. This year’s Series, in which the San

Francisco Giants defeated the Kansas City Royals

to win their third championship in five years, was

no exception.

The narrative, however, is not so simple.

Although baseball may be no longer be our

national “pastime,” it remains culturally

important and generates plenty of money. It is

most certainly not dying.

Baseball cannot compete with football for a

national TV audience. Football’s interplay

of grace and violence, complicated plays

within a simple game, and its constant,

built-in play stoppages, make it an ideal

sport for TV. Millions of people enjoy

watching football for the sake of watching

football, regardless of whether or not their

favorite team is playing. Not only has

the Super Bowl set TV ratings records for

the past several years, but regular season

NFL games have consistently generated

substantial TV revenue. On the other hand,

regular season baseball games have fallen

short and even the World Series has been

losing viewers. This year’s Series went

its maximum length, to a winner-take-all

Game 7, but was the third least-watched

World Series since 1984.

But Major League Baseball has found a

solution. Instead of broadcasting all their

games nationally, they have adopted a regional

broadcasting model. While the league

maintains national TV deals with ESPN, TBS,

and FOX that generate more than $1.5 billion

per year in combined income, as its own MLB

Network, its primary TV revenue comes from

local cable deals made by its 30 franchises.

The ten teams with the most lucrative of the-

se deals, which include equity stakes, make

a total of $1.7 billion per year from the deals.

An average baseball game may be seen by

comparatively few people, but in a 162-game

season, viewership adds up. Baseball has

found a system that ensures that even with

viewership of their showcase event dropping,

their regional popularity is relatively healthy

and their TV revenue is growing.

The World Series was a perfect example of

baseball’s appeal. Game 7 was a considerable

success for Fox — its best-rated Wednesday

night event since 2011. But the real support

came regionally, in San Francisco, where 64

percent of people watching TV had the game

on, and Kansas City, where 77 percent did.

Although the average American is less likely

to tune in to the World Series, this is not a

death sentence for baseball. If Kansas City,

which had gone 29 years without making the

playoffs, could support their team so strongly,

baseball must still carry real cultural cachet.

Even if baseball remains healthy in the present,

it must continue to attract fans in the future.

Youth participation in baseball is dropping,

and according to a Nielsen study, half of all

baseball’s TV viewers in 2013 were at least 55

years old.

The larger story, however, is that youth

participation in team sports is dropping, across

all sports. During the same period, 2008-

2012, when baseball participation dropped 7.2

percent, basketball participation fell even more

sharply. Football participation fell as well,

and even soccer, hailed as America’s future

pastime, lost nearly the same percentage of its

6- to 18-year-old participants. However, youth

participation in a sport is neither a prerequisite

for fandom nor an especially good indicator

of it. If it were, baseball would be far more

popular than football—despite the decline in

percentage, nearly twice as many kids play

baseball as football. NASCAR, which more

Americans consider their favorite sport aside

from football and baseball, would have almost

no fans at all.

One downside of baseball’s regional appeal

model is the lack of a star player to represent

the league on a national level. It is possible

that the recently-retired Derek Jeter will be

one of the last players to ever be a nationally-

recognized baseball celebrity. It would be nice

for the league if someone took his place.

However, this is complicated by more

than just the television arrangement.

Last year’s All-Star game included

players born in the Dominican Republic,

Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Japan.

English is the second language of many

of the game’s best players.

As it is, however, the league is doing

just fine. Major League Baseball sold

73.7 million tickets during the 2014

regular season. Its average per-game

attendance over 162 games per team

was nearly half of the what the NFL, our

unquestioned new national pastime,

managed over just 16 games. Baseball may

once have had a greater share of the American

sports landscape, but it remains popular and

important. It is not a dying sport.

Benjamin Szanton is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

Baseball remains popular, successful and important. It is not a dying sport.

HOWEVER, THE REAL WORRY IS YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS.Between 2008 and 2012, participation among 6 to 18-year-olds in sports has fallen...

WORLD SERIES WITH THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP (SINCE 1984)This year’s Series went its maximum

length, to a winner-take-all Game 7,

but was the third least-watched


THE SUPPORT COMES REGIONALLYIn San Francisco and Kansas City, more than half

the TV-watching population had the game on.

BASEBALL BASKETBALL FOOTBALL SOCCER

2012 12.7m

2008 13.6m

2014 13.8m

1987 35.3m

1991 35.7m

1986 36.4m

BUT NOT ALL HOPE IS LOST...The MLB has adopted a regional broadcasting model.

Annual revenue from MLB Network and other TV deals

Annual combined revenue from top ten MBL teams’ TV deals.

KANSAS CITY SAN FRANCISCO

HOWEVER, THE REAL WORRY IS YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS.Between 2008 and 2012, participation among 6 to 18-year-olds in sports has fallen...

WORLD SERIES WITH THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP (SINCE 1984)This year’s Series went its maximum

length, to a winner-take-all Game 7,

but was the third least-watched


THE SUPPORT COMES REGIONALLYIn San Francisco and Kansas City, more than half

the TV-watching population had the game on.

BASEBALL BASKETBALL FOOTBALL SOCCER

2012 12.7m

2008 13.6m

2014 13.8m

1987 35.3m

1991 35.7m

1986 36.4m

BUT NOT ALL HOPE IS LOST...The MLB has adopted a regional broadcasting model.

Annual revenue from MLB Network and other TV deals

Annual combined revenue from top ten MBL teams’ TV deals.

KANSAS CITY SAN FRANCISCO

politiCAl revieW | SportS

11

12


over the last several months, the movement to protect young athletes against exploitation by antitrust-

exempt businesses (such as the NCAA) has scored major victories. The Northwestern University football players’ union, the public outrage following Shabazz Napier’s statement that he and his teammates went to bed hungry because they couldn’t afford dinner, and the O’Bannon v NCAA case victory all underscore the reality that the American public will not stand for the exploitation of its youth anymore. At the same time, there is a far more troubling lawsuit pending regarding the wages of minor league baseball players.

This fracas with the NCAA is paralleled by the case of Senne v. MLB. Last February, Garrett Broshuis, a Minor League pitcher turned lawyer, filed a suit on behalf of three Minor Leaguers: Aaron Senne, Michael Liberto, and Oliver Odle. Since then, dozens more Minor Leaguers have signed on in a joint suit against all 30 Major League teams. The suit is intended to challenge the practice of paying Minor Leaguers what amounts to less than federal and state minimum wages. The players are trying to raise awareness of this fact and challenge MLB’s exploitative payment practices as a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state law. Minor League Baseball players make between $1,100 and $2,150 dollars per month, depending on the level they’re at and the amount of experience they have. For perspective, a

federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour over a 40 hour week provides an income of $290 per week, or $1160 per month. That’s right: the lowest level Minor Leagues don’t pay minimum wage. Consider additionally that players are only paid for the three to five month minor league season, instead of for 12 months. And while the top tier of drafted and international amateur talent receive million-dollar bonuses upon signing with organizations, most players do not.

For its part, MLB could argue that Minor League players should be treated as seasonal employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows for an exemption to amusement and entertainment industries that operate less than seven months per year. However, while championship seasons certainly operate within that time frame, teams themselves earn revenue year round, and they maintain full time staffs in the offseason. For one example, Major and Minor League teams earn constant revenue from their television, endorsement, and marketing deals. Front office staff work year-round to identify players to draft, sign as free agents, or trade, and they must also take care of the business operations. The games played during the summer months are a small part of the overall business that organizations are doing.

Unfortunately, though many of them eventually contribute to Major League rosters and collectively form the backup to each team, Minor Leaguers are not protected by or members of the MLB Player’s Association. The MLBPA is the union that collectively bargains for the rights and salaries of Major League players. Without this protection, the Minor League players are protected only by the Uniform Player Contract that each team and player signs, which merely allows for salary negotiation once a player reaches free agency. It takes several years of team control to reach Minor League free agency though, and until that point the team sets the salaries and has the right to trade or

release the player at will.

But why is this suit being filed against the Major League teams instead of their Minor League affiliates? They’re related franchises, but isn’t it the Minor Leagues’ problem? Not precisely, no. For the privilege of having access to the players on Minor League rosters, the Major League teams pay their affiliates’ salaries in whole. The Minor League affiliates benefit as well, getting 100 percent of the revenue from their operations ostensibly as compensation for losing their best players year after year, so everyone wins. Well, everyone except the players.

The Major League minimum salary in 2014 was $500,000, but according to Baseball America, only 17% of baseball players drafted from 1987-2008 played a game in the Majors. That statistic has likely gone up, as injuries and specialization, especially of bullpens, have led to a larger amount of necessary roster depth. Even so, the vast majority of Minor Leaguers never sniff the Majors. They’re left to take minimum wage or part-time jobs in the offseason to try to make ends meet, all for the sake of chasing a lifelong dream. Broadly protected by an antitrust exemption, MLB is exploiting these poor players’ dreams to serve its own selfish needs. It’s about time someone stood up and sued.

Court decisions and public opinion are increasingly moving against the NCAA’s exploitative practices, so there is hope for the Minor Leaguers as well. For now though, their day in court will come no earlier than 2016. It’s impossible to say whether the lawsuit will change the way MLB pays its farm teams, but it should be clear that for most of these men, the promise of a chance in the Majors is not enough to pay the bills. Something must change.

Minor leagUerS Have rigHtS, too

Alex Griffel is a junior in the College of Arts & Sci-ences. He can be reached at [email protected]

Alex Griffel

Broadly protected by an antitrust exemption, MLB is exploiting these poor play-ers’ dreams to serve its own selfish needs. It’s about time someone stood up and sued.

13


Nobody likes a lockout. Not the fans, not the players, not the owners, and not the countless workers

and members of the media who rely on professional athletic events taking place as scheduled. So why are there so many lockouts, and why do they last so long?

The numbers stack up quickly. Together, the incumbent commissioners of the four primary professional sports leagues in the United States have had five strikes or lockouts occur on their watches. While strikes are initiated by players, lockouts begin with team owners. Gary Bettman, the commissioner of the NHL, is on top in the standings with three partially or wholly incomplete seasons in his 21-year tenure; recently retired NBA commissioner David Stern topped that with four under his leadership.

In general, unions go on strike in the United States relatively frequently. But each strike represents a different union’s fight for just compensation, whether teachers, transit workers, or industrial laborers. Once a strike is over, regardless of who can be said to have “won,” the matter is generally considered settled for a long time within that particular industry. After the fact, not everyone is happy, but both the employees and bosses are back making money and contributing to the economy. After labor strikes in professional sports, these factors tend to hold true just as they do in other enterprises. So why are there so many athletic labor disputes every decade, sometimes within the same league? What makes professional players’ associations and sports leagues so different from other unions and industries?

To begin with, athletic labor negotiations are more heavily leveraged by public opinion than those of other businesses. Unlike in most other industries, the athletes’ egos and the publicity of the situation are substantial

factors in negotiations. Sure, the entire country is affected by air traffic controllers (who famously went on strike in 1981) and UPS employees (who did the same in 1997), and both of those strikes were well followed by the American public. But neither of those groups have recognizable faces who are directly involved and who can sway popular opinion. Larry Fitzgerald, a prolific receiver for the Arizona Cardinals, took to Twitter to express his impatience with the 2011 NFL lockout. Franchise quarterbacks Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady released a statement to the AP voicing

their concern which made for great quotes on radio and television shows covering the strike. These are names even casual fans are familiar with, names people try to draft in their fantasy leagues, and names they respect. These players obviously cannot be replaced by athletes willing to accept less, and the public knows these players have a personal interest in resolving the strike. Research shows that the public opinion has a substantial effect on ordinary strikes, and that effect is only magnified when many of the affected parties are so well-known in the public sphere.

In the world of professional sports, the negotiations are much more balanced than in other fields. Professional athletes in the four big leagues (the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB) are still able to live day-to-day without worrying about putting food on the table and saving for retirement. In the NFL,

the least anyone on a roster can be paid is $420,000 annually. The other three leagues all have even higher base salaries. With the possible exception of rookies, financial concerns are not as immediate during these strikes as in other less lucrative occupations. Consequently, the players are not so easily forced out of their demands.

Professional sports labor negotiations are more level and have higher stakes for more people, and thus tend to resolve quickly. But the final factor in determining why they last so long doesn’t concern the public, but

rather the impermanent nature of being an athlete. In professional sports associations, the labor force is transient: on average, careers in the four big leagues range from 3.5 to 5.6 years. Because the athletes on each team in a league are constantly changing from year to year, labor settlements may not seem reasonable just a few years after they come into effect. Additionally, when one league adjusts its free agent policy or

revenue allocation model, players in another league may want to follow suit. In short, the ever-changing landscape of the players and their unions weakens the effect of the compromise in the long-term. This leads to more disputes, more lockouts, and more short-term solutions.

At the end of the day, collective bargaining negotiations often reach for single percentage points at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for all parties. But when you pit two sides that both love winning against one another, it’s not going to end without a fight—and you can be sure there will always be a rematch.

collective Bargaining iS not a Spectator Sport

Samuel Klein is a freshman the College of Arts & Sci-ences. He can be reached at [email protected].

Samuel Klein

The ever-changing landscape of the players and their unions weakens the effect of the compromise in the long-term.


over a decade ago, the St. Louis Rams were

the “Greatest Show on Turf,” a high-

scoring juggernaut that played in two

Super Bowls and welcomed the new millennium

with a thrilling championship conclusion (search

“Mike Jones tackle” on YouTube).

The Rams are now well on their way to an 11th

consecutive season without a winning record.

Perhaps you are neither a football fan nor a

native St. Louisan, so this fact is less relevant

to you than for the thousands of dejected fans

dreaming about the glory days. But for every

St. Louis taxpayer, regardless of personal

connection to football or the Rams, the state of

the local team should be a prime item of focus.

Starting January 28, 2015, the Rams are

eligible to move into a year-to-year lease at

downtown’s Edward Jones Dome. Essentially,

the franchise can decide to kiss the Midwest

goodbye at any point starting then. Los

Angeles, where the Rams played from 1946 to

1994, is rumored as a probable destination.

St. Louis lured the Rams away from Los

Angeles with an alluring stadium deal that

has now turned into nothing short of a fiscal

disaster for the St. Louis region and the State

of Missouri. As a publicly funded project,

the Edward Jones Dome construction relied

on 50 percent financing from the state and

25 percent apiece from the city and county.

The state, city, and county pay a $24 million

annual tab to cover debt and stadium upkeep.

Even that price is apparently not enough—the

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in June that

the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports

Complex Authority is asking for as much as

$40 million in additional government funding

over the next 15 years.

The Dome, meanwhile, is already

considered one of the NFL’s

worst stadiums just two

decades after being built.

To stay put in Missouri,

the Rams want either

a major renovation

or a new stadium

altogether. And again, they are asking local and

state government to foot a significant portion

of the bill. Last year, the Rams proposed that

the public pay for $700 million in stadium

upgrades, a plan summarily rejected.

“There was nobody in St. Louis who thought

that the Rams’ proposal was a good idea, other

than the Rams,” Jeff Rainford, Mayor Francis

Slay’s chief of staff, told the Associated Press.

Nonetheless, government officials still hope

to work out a deal enticing enough to have

the Rams stay. In early November, Governor

Jay Nixon called keeping the Rams in St. Louis

“a matter of civic and state pride, and one of

international significance.”

Nixon said he expects at least some private

investment toward renovation or a new

stadium this time around. The history of

American sports venue development, however,

suggests that taxpayers will be forced to vastly

overpay yet again.

Studies have found that sports stadiums

generate far less revenue than teams boast

they will, due to the economic substitution

effect. If there’s no NFL franchise around,

people do not suddenly stop spending money

on their nights out. Rather, they budget for trips

to the movies, restaurants or other cultural

institutions that bring in tax revenue for the

state, city, or county. But as any sports fan

(including myself) will tell you, the games carry

a profound psychological impact, which is why

cities and states get suckered into financing

athletic pantheons that billionaire owners and

private investors should be supporting.

St. Louis has a history of falling for this trap.

American Studies scholar George Lipsitz wrote

in a 1984 volume of the Journal of Sport and

Social Issues that the mid-1960s construction of

the Busch Memorial Stadium (old home of the

Cardinals) brought profit to corporations at the

expense of citizens.

While city services declined and families and

resources fled to the suburbs, St. Louis’ urban

renewal commission, Civic Progress, made

“blighted” areas downtown into tax-free zones

for corporations. The Cardinals’ owner, August

“Gussie” Busch, used the team as a piggy bank

for his family company, Anheuser-Busch. City

funds and services continued to evaporate.

Decades later, St. Louis was able to resist having

significant public funds go into the construction

of downtown’s new Busch Stadium. The

bargaining success was primarily due to the

leverage fans had over franchise ownership.

The Cardinals’ brand is inextricably tied to St.

Louis, and relocation would have been a poorer

financial choice than privately covering nearly 90

percent of the stadium’s costs.

However, the new facility left a vacant lot in

the space once occupied by Busch Memorial

Stadium. This lot quickly became a source of

contention in downtown development. After

seven years, construction finally finished on

the $100 million first phase of Ballpark Village,

a Cardinals-themed consortium of restaurants

and bars, plus a team museum.

The ballclub pitched the Village as a game-

changer for downtown St. Louis. But at what

cost? The project dipped into the state’s

trove of tax-increment financing (TIF) funds.

TIF subsidies take a portion of tax revenue

generated from development projects and put

them back toward paying off the construction

debt. If a facility does not keep pace with its

expected revenue, then taxpayers are more

private SpaceS, pUBliclY FUnDeDAlex Leichenger | Illustration by Kate McCarter

Serving the interests of Budweiser, however, is more important to the developers than making urban development projects productive for all segments of the population.

14

15


private SpaceS, pUBliclY FUnDeD

directly on the hook. The corporate partners

involved in the project end up taking on less risk

than the consumers it is supposed to benefit.

If other sports facilities are any indication,

the projected windfall from Ballpark Village

is probably an overeager estimate. The TIF

district for Louisville’s KFC Yum! Arena,

for example, has fallen woefully short of

expectations. From 2010 to 2012, TIF revenues

comprised just 32 percent of the original

forecast. The substitution effect is crucial,

according to Missouri State professor David

Mitchell, who studies regional economics.

“[Ballpark Village is] unlikely to have as much

of an economic impact as they think it is,

because in order to have a huge economic

impact, you have to get people to do something

that they’re not already doing,” he said.

The Cardinals expect their sizable draw to

out-of-town fans to create additional sources

of revenue, but those visitors will only come 81

days of the year (the number of home games

in a baseball season). The franchise hopes

turning Ballpark Village into a multi-use facility

for concerts and other events will solve that

problem. However, development officials for

the Edward Jones Dome made the same pitch

20 years ago, and taxpayers took the bait.

However, it’s not only the cost of the projects,

but also the nature of them that is distressing.

To develop Ballpark Village, the Cardinals

hired Cordish Companies, which has a track

record of racial discrimination lawsuits against

it in Louisville and Kansas City. In Louisville,

the lawsuit alleges that a Cordish-owned

property’s employees refused to allow a group

to hold an event after determining that the

proportion of black attendees would be too

high. In the Kansas City case, plaintiffs claimed

that a nightclub demonstrated a “pattern and

practice” of harassment and denied entrance.

At Ballpark Village, the intent of whom the

facility is meant to serve (and deny) is quite

transparent. Just take a look at the dress code:

The following is not permitted under

our dress code after 9 pm: Main Level:

sleeveless shirts on men, profanity on

clothing, exposed undergarments on men,

sweat pants, full sweat suits, excessively

long shirts (when standing upright with

arms at your side, the bottom of your

shirt can not extend below the tip of

your fingers), athletic shorts, excessively

sagging pants or shorts, and bandanas.

Apparently, bandanas pose a more severe threat

to public safety than drunk driving, since a new

parking lot takes up most of the Village’s property

space. Serving the interests of Budweiser,

however, is more important to the developers

than making urban development projects

productive for all segments of the population.

Issues of race and class are an unavoidable

subtext to any discussion of sports

development. Egregious financing and other

harmful development tactics exacerbate

racial and class divides outside of the facilities

themselves. In the 1960s, white flight to

St. Louis County and misguided urban

development drained desperately needed

resources from the city while benefitting

plutocrats like Gussie Busch.

In the 1990s and 2000s, white flight from

North County to even further suburbs

combined with more misguided urban

development, continues to drain desperately

needed resources from everybody.

If planned the right way, stadiums have the

potential to build on athletics’ most desirable

quality—the ability to unify people of diverse

backgrounds toward a common psychological

purpose of winning. Instead, the developments

go hand-in-hand with gentrification and

exclusion. Indeed, a future phase of Ballpark

Village construction calls not for mixed-income

housing, which should be an essential part of

any stadium project, but luxury condos.

The Cardinals are a civic treasure, and

the Rams were once one as well. In their

development practices, they must also live up

to the billing.

Alex Leichenger is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

66% 26% 75% 81%

Shahid Khan, the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, became the NFL’s first and only owner of color in January 2012.

8 of the last 12 Super Bowl participants have had either a black coach or General Manager.

There are 6 African- American General Managers in the NFL.

Percentage of NFL

players who are

racial minorities.

Percentage of NFL

management positions

occupied by persons of color.

Percentage of NBA players

that are African-Americans


that are people of color.

Percentage of

African-American

players in the league

Percentage of Latino


1981 2012 1981 2012

Sources: http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/08/28/2544061/50-years-mlks-dream-professional-sports-stand-race/ http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2013/2013_MLB_RGRC_Final_Correction.pdf

0/8 Open head coaching positions filled by minorities in 2013

0/7 Open General Manager positions filled by minorities in 2013

16 16 NBA coaches are people of color.

6/30 There are 6 African-American General Managers for the 30 NBA teams.

#1 No American league employs a higher percentage of people of color in its front office.

THE NFL THE NBATHE MLB

18.7%

11.1%

26.9%

7.2%

7 of the 31 players taken in the first round of the 2012 MLB draft were black

This is the highest percentage since 1992.

FRONT OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN 201214.7% - Latino Employees3.4% - Asian Emploees9.7% - African-American Employees

Latino

Asian

African-American

There are 3 people of color who were General Managers at the start of 2012

This is down from the high of 5 GMs in 2010

Only 1 out of the 49 Majority owners of MLB teams is a person of color. PERCENTAGE

MAJORITY OWNERS

PERCENTAGE OF LEAGUE OFFICE STAFF

PERCENTAGE OF HEAD COACHES

White White Person of color

Person of color

98%64%

2%

35%

White Person of color

53% 47%

16

MinoritY repreSentation in aMerican SportSInfographic by Simin Lim

politiCAl revieW | SportS

17

66% 26% 75% 81%

Shahid Khan, the owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, became the NFL’s first and only owner of color in January 2012.

8 of the last 12 Super Bowl participants have had either a black coach or General Manager.

There are 6 African- American General Managers in the NFL.

Percentage of NFL

players who are

racial minorities.

Percentage of NFL

management positions

occupied by persons of color.


that are African-Americans


that are people of color.

Percentage of

African-American


Percentage of Latino


1981 2012 1981 2012

Sources: http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/08/28/2544061/50-years-mlks-dream-professional-sports-stand-race/ http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2013/2013_MLB_RGRC_Final_Correction.pdf

0/8 Open head coaching positions filled by minorities in 2013

0/7 Open General Manager positions filled by minorities in 2013

16 16 NBA coaches are people of color.

6/30 There are 6 African-American General Managers for the 30 NBA teams.

#1 No American league employs a higher percentage of people of color in its front office.

THE NFL THE NBATHE MLB

18.7%

11.1%

26.9%

7.2%

7 of the 31 players taken in the first round of the 2012 MLB draft were black

This is the highest percentage since 1992.

FRONT OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN 201214.7% - Latino Employees3.4% - Asian Emploees9.7% - African-American Employees

Latino

Asian

African-American

There are 3 people of color who were General Managers at the start of 2012

This is down from the high of 5 GMs in 2010

Only 1 out of the 49 Majority owners of MLB teams is a person of color. PERCENTAGE

MAJORITY OWNERS

PERCENTAGE OF LEAGUE OFFICE STAFF

PERCENTAGE OF HEAD COACHES

White White Person of color

Person of color

98%64%

2%

35%

White Person of color

53% 47%

18


With the final blow of the whistle,

Brazilian soccer fans erupted into

profane chants about their president,

Dilma Rousseff. Their national team had just

experienced its worst-ever performance in

the World Cup, losing 7-1 to Germany in the

semifinals. With each angry chant, it seemed

that the Brazilians lost faith not only in their

team, but also in their country. And with the

Brazilian presidential election approaching in a

few months, the chants led many to question

what effect the loss would have on President

Rousseff’s re-election chances.

Though President Rousseff did end up

winning the election in October, the

loss of the Brazilian team made her re-

election significantly harder. Before the

team was knocked out of the World Cup,

approximately 38 percent of individuals said

they would vote for President Rousseff. This

number then declined after the team was

eliminated in the semifinals to 36 percent,

narrowing the margin between her and

her competitors and demonstrating a clear

correlation between support for her and the

national team’s success. Although Rousseff

won re-election, it was by the narrowest

margin in Brazilian electoral history.

Not convinced that sports could possibly

make a difference in elections? It’s

Psychology 101. According to a 2010 study

authored by Andrew J. Healy of Loyola

Marymount University along with Neil

Malhotra and Cecilia Hyunjung Mo of

Stanford University, our emotions affect

the evaluations we make. When we are

happy, we will evaluate the status quo more

positively. Interestingly, in the case of an

18

Do SportS winS eqUal political winS?Chloe Naguib and Lindsey Wanberg | Illustration by MJ Brown

19


election, the human brain tends to associate

the incumbent with the “status quo.” The

study expands: “Voters who are in a positive

state of mind on Election Day are likely to

use their mood as a signal for the incumbent

party’s success and access positive memories

about the incumbent party and/or interpret

past actions taken by the incumbent party

more favorably.” Therefore, “those voters may

then be more likely to choose the incumbent

party in the election.”

This is the premise behind why sports wins

and losses, independent from political

and economic factors, can sway elections.

Sports have a great effect on our emotions,

and therefore affect our decision-making.

To prove this, Healy, Malhotra, and Mo

dug up data from 1964 to 2008 regarding

the outcome of “pre-election” local college

football games and the success of the

incumbent in the following election. They

ultimately found that in these local college

football games in particular, “a win the

10 [days] before Election Day causes the

incumbent to receive an additional 1.61

percentage points of the vote in Senate,

gubernatorial, and presidential elections,

with the effect being larger for teams with

stronger fan support.”

So what does this mean for our own

government in the United States? Even

though sports will play some role in the

elections of incumbents, the American

government is more insulated from this

effect than other nations due to aspects of

American sports culture and the structure of

the US government.

Americans are pretty divided among the

sports that they follow, a fact demonstrated

by a Gallup poll that asked Americans to

indicate their preferred sport. The favorite

of most respondents was football (39

percent), followed by baseball (14 percent)

and basketball (12 percent). This means that

the individuals emotionally affected by a

particular win or loss are less concentrated,

therefore minimizing election-swaying

potential. Furthermore, the most popular

sport in the United States, football, is not

played internationally. Because we don’t

have a national team to rally behind or to

symbolize our nation’s triumph against

others through competition, presidential

elections are less affected by the outcome

of sporting events.. These two unique

properties of the American sports system

allow US presidential elections to be more

insulated than those of other nations.

That certainly does not mean American

politicians cannot use sports to their

advantage. Sports games function as a

platform for politicians to increase their

popularity. A little more than a month

after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, during the

first pitch of the 2001 World Series, every

news camera focused on George W. Bush,

straight-faced at the mound. Bush was not

the most popular president, but he could

throw. John Flinn, writing for the Elite Daily

recalled the pitch with admiration. According

to him, “George W. Bush freaking nailed it.”

Flinn explained that Bush’s pitch changed

the political atmosphere as it signaled that

“if baseball could carry on, then [the United

States] could too.” Using the mound as

his platform, President Bush pumped hope

into the political atmosphere, making the

crowd go wild.

Though sports will always play some role

in affecting incumbent elections for our

government, America is more insulated

from the effects than other countries. Local

politicians may still have a chance to ride the

wave of enthusiasm from sports victories

back into office. However, sports will play

a diminished role in the United States

presidential elections in comparison to those

of other countries.

This is the premise behind why sports wins and losses, independent from political and economic factors, can sway elections. Sports have a great effect on our emotions, and therefore affect our decision-making.

Chloe Naguib is a freshman in the Olin Business School. She can be reached at [email protected]. Lindsey Wanberg is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].

20


W hen most people think of the

Olympics, they think of unity,

togetherness, and a place where

nations stand equal as competitors. However,

these words can no longer be used to describe

the Olympics. When Baron Pierre de Coubertin

created the modern Olympic Games, he

envisioned an event that would help unite the

world and promote physical education. The

games no longer live up to those high ideals.

The games have become so unpopular to host

that there are only two countries in the entire

world still bidding to host the 2022 Winter

Olympic Games, Kazakhstan and China.

Countries no longer want to host the

games for both economic reasons and

issues surrounding the public’s present

perception of the Olympics. .

Economically speaking, it doesn’t make

sense for a country to host the games

unless it’s a rich nation that wants to

show off its wealth. The most recent

Olympics, held in Sochi, Russia, cost

an estimated $51 billion, a value that

if translated into the GDP of a country

would rank 76th in the world. Not

only is this an enormous number, but

this money is not being effectively

put to use. In most countries, once

the stadiums are built, they remain

empty and unused for decades after.

How can one of the mission statements of

the International Olympic Committee be to

“promote a positive legacy from the Olympic

Games to the host cities and host countries” if

all that is left is unused buildings? Another issue

is that the people in the host country can no

longer afford the ticket prices of the events—this

is a particular concern for the Rio de Janeiro

Games in 2016. How can the host country

celebrate if their people can’t even go see the

games? The people are left with unwanted

buildings they can’t enter, unwanted tourists

crowding their streets, and an unwanted waste

of their money.

Certainly, with most countries around the

world struggling economically, hosting the

Olympics would only be detrimental. In

addition to the costs of the infrastructure, there

are thousands of volunteers needed to run the

Olympic Games. Usually, people love to do

this. However, this volunteering is unpaid, and

in countries with struggling economies people

want compensation for their work and cannot

afford to give away their skills for free. Some

volunteers include skilled professionals like

doctors, who would otherwise demand high

salaries. The 2016 Rio de Janeiro Games are

struggling to attract volunteers, and if they do

not get enough people, the cost of the games

could rise significantly, even if the majority of

these workers are only paid the minimum wage.

Another problem the Olympics face is that of

public perception. Athletes who win medals

are usually celebrated and revered in their

home countries, held up as role models to

school children, put on the box of Wheaties

and flaunted on television advertisements. The

athletes of today often no longer deserve such

celebration. Some of today’s most famous

Olympic athletes are better known for their

infamy than for their medals and achievements.

Recently, Oscar Pistorius was charged and

convicted of culpable homicide. Michael

Phelps, arguably the most successful Olympic

athlete of our generation has had his troubles

with drinking and driving, which resulted in a

six-month suspension. Hope Solo, who helped

lead the women’s Olympic soccer team to

two gold medals, was recently arrested for

domestic violence. Another issue with today’s

athletes is not only their integrity off the field,

but also on it. With the advent of performance

enhancing drugs, many athletes have broken

rules in order to gain even the slimmest

advantage. How can we tell our kids to go out,

try their best, and have fun, win or lose, when

the people they are looking up to are doing the

exact opposite?

One could argue that the biggest perception

problem isn’t even with the athletes

themselves, but the governments

running the games. There was lots of

coverage on the corruption in the Sochi

Games, but something that hasn’t

been talked about enough perhaps is

the corruption going on in Rio. People

are upset because both the city and

the entire country don’t have the

necessary infrastructure to support

the games. The government has also

decided to tear down some of the city’s

slums because of their proximity to

Olympic venues, displacing thousands

of people. This caused riots at the

beginning of last summer, the burning

of buses, and police clashes. People

protested the amount of money the

government was spending on the

Olympics instead of funding education,

transport, and healthcare.

With so many reasons not to host, many

countries have simply given up efforts to try

and win the bidding to host the Olympics. The

worst part is, these countries are completely

justified in doing so.

Reuben Siegman is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected]

The most recent Olympics, held in Sochi, Russia, cost an estimated $51 billion a value that if translated into the GDP of a country would rank 76th in the world.

Reuben Siegman

State oF tHe gaMeS

21


if Jackie Robinson were alive today, I wonder

how he would feel about the current racial state

of sports. Surely, as the first African-American

professional baseball player, he would feel great

pride in seeing how far things have come.

As Americans, we love these “first-ever”

narratives-- and Robinson’s holds a particularly

strong appeal. It is not hard to see why: his story

involves the politics of oppression, unparalleled

athletic prowess, and an individual overcoming

nearly impossible odds. It is a uniquely American

tale. These types of narratives also act as

informal metrics for societal progress, showing

us just how far race relations have advanced.

Yet as inspiring as Robinson’s story is, we should

recognize that the current demographics of

sports are not entirely laudable. In fact, they

indicate persistent societal inequalities, vestiges

of the America Robinson called home.

Ostensibly, progress has been immense. Today,

more than 75 percent of players in the NBA

identify as black, as do more than two thirds of

those in the NFL. While this certainly indicates

progress of one sort, it also raises important

questions. What accounts for this athletic

ascendance? The answer seems to be that…

it’s complicated. However, many Americans

opt for a simpler answer, frequently concluding

that African Americans are simply athletically

superior. Widespread and long-lasting

stereotypes of black males as exceptionally fast

and strong undoubtedly inform these views.

What does the science say? Again, it’s

complicated. However many recent scientific

findings have established that the genetic basis

for race is tenuous, perhaps non-existent.

Moreover, while many people intend to

extol African American athletes with these

stereotypes, their efforts actually amount to

tacit bigotry. As Harry Edwards, Professor of

Sociology at UC Berkeley, points out, “What

really is being said in a kind of underhanded way

is that blacks are closer to beasts and animals

in terms of their genetic and physical and

anatomical make up.” Racism, in many ways, still

characterizes our perception of black athletes.

Historical parallels abound. During the first half

of the 20th century, for example, Jewish people

possessed apparent dominion over professional

sports. According to a recent Huffington Post

article, in the 1940s many Americans colloquially

branded professional basketball as “JewBall”

due to the prevalence of Jewish athletes. In fact,

the first person to ever score a basket in an NBA

game was Ossie Schectman, a Jewish New

York Knickerbockers player (another “first-ever”

story). Many of Schectman’s teammates were

Jewish as well. Just like today, a large part of the

American public relied on stereotypes to explain

this phenomenon. In an NY Daily News article in

1930, reporter Paul Gallico wrote: “[basketball]

places a premium on an alert, scheming mind,

flashy trickiness, artful dodging, and general

smart alecness.” Anti-Semitic rhetoric sought

to explain a phenomenon that was largely

environmental. During that time, many Jewish

Americans, often recent immigrants, lived in

inner cities. Basketball was a potential way out

of poverty. More importantly, it was a way to

keep kids off the streets. Many synagogues and

Jewish organizations, on a local level, established

a myriad of youth basketball leagues. This

situation sounds familiar.

It is no secret that modern America remains

grossly segregated. According to PBS,

approximately 70 percent of African Americans

reside in inner cities. As was the case in the

1920s-40s for many Jewish people, sports

provide today’s inner city youth with potential

economic prosperity. With immense inequities

in education, many kids see sports as either the

most feasible “way out,” or the only way they

will be able to afford this country’s exorbitantly

expensive colleges. These inequities seep into

many other facets of American life (evidenced

by the presence of both race-based achievement

gaps and wage gaps). This is, in turn, reflected in

the demographics of pro sports. Despite the fact

that the vast majority of NBA players are black,

98 percent of team owners are white males.

In the entire NBA, there is only one black team

owner: Michael Jordan. Is this not indicative of

pervasive societal inequality? The same is true

of the NFL, where 97 percent of team owners

are white men, as are 90 percent of general

managers and head coaches. With so many

African American players, who are experts at

their respective sports, wouldn’t one expect that

a larger percentage would become coaches?

All of this makes me wonder about Jackie

Robinson. In his time, the ability for African

Americans to play professional sports

represented huge societal progress. Today, the

fact that such a large percentage of African-

Americans are professional athletes represents

just the opposite: it indicates that widespread

inequities persist in our country. “First-evers”

are important, but only when their presence

leads to more opportunity and greater equality.

They are important when the system changes

in their wake, not when they are an exception

to a rule. Michael Jordan owning the Bobcats is

an exception to the rule. Today, society needs

game-changers not on the field, but on the

sidelines, in the manager’s box, and outside of

the arena altogether. Then the demographics of

sports might represent a more egalitarian nation.

The demographics of

sports…indicate persistent

societal inequalities,

vestiges of the America

Robinson called home.

reMeMBering Jackie roBinSon: racial eqUalitY in SportS Benjamin Compall

Benjamin Compall is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

22


2 3

POLITICAL REVIEW | SPORTS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPORTS

GEORGE H. W. BUSH

Bush Senior may seem like a wizened old man now, but he is probably the most accomplished athlete of the Bush dynasty. He was captain of the baseball team at Yale (though he also was a great soccer player), but even more impressive was his level of physical activity while he was president. He jogged daily, played tennis, fished, golfed and even biked to work- when his work was meeting diplomats and creating policy. Even at the ripe old age of 90, Bush still has goals set for his next fishing trips, making him truly an eternal sporty president.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

Despite being in generally poor health for most of his life, JFK managed to keep up appearances of health through many physical pursuits. On top of the rigorous activity of keeping his numerous affairs away from the public eye, he loved swimming, golf, tennis, football, and many water and winter sports. Said JFK himself, “Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity.”

BILL CLINTON

Though sports seem to have taken a backseat to other pastimes (such as food and young interns) with Bill Clinton, he definitely enjoyed the more leisurely pastime of golf. He is the most recent recipient of the PGA’s Distinguished Service Award, and therefore merits a place in the sporty presidents hall of fame. Aside from golf, Clinton was known for taking a few short runs a week, ideally to McDonalds or the like as seen below. GERALD FORD

It may be hard to imagine consider-ing the bald, bumbling image we have today of President Ford, but Ford has the honor of being the only US president who ever tackled a Heisman winner. This stud-turned-ineffective-president was courted by both the Packers and the Lions due to his stellar career playing football for the University of Michigan. If we consider that he was also a catalog model in order to make money for college expenses during this time, one could argue that he may have been the rare President who peaked well before he entered office.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT

Teddy Roosevelt was an avid boxer from his Harvard days, declaring it a “condensed way” to get quality exercise. He would frequently bring sparring partners to the White House until a fateful match in 1908, where an opponents punch caused blindness in one eye at age 50. That ended his boxing career, but he continued to follow the sport, and in his autobiography he claimed to have took up jujitsu as an elderly man.

Throughout history, Presidents

have made sure to engage

athletic pursuits in order to

show of their health and

youthful energy. From George

Washington (allegedly)

hacking down that pesky

cherry tree to Obama shooting

hoops with LeBron, our

commanders-in-chief love to

show off their prowess in

sports. Here are just a few of

our sportiest presidents

SPORTY PRESIDENTSSportY preSiDentSGrace Portelance | Design by Simin Lim

23


2 3

POLITICAL REVIEW | SPORTS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPORTS

GEORGE H. W. BUSH

Bush Senior may seem like a wizened old man now, but he is probably the most accomplished athlete of the Bush dynasty. He was captain of the baseball team at Yale (though he also was a great soccer player), but even more impressive was his level of physical activity while he was president. He jogged daily, played tennis, fished, golfed and even biked to work- when his work was meeting diplomats and creating policy. Even at the ripe old age of 90, Bush still has goals set for his next fishing trips, making him truly an eternal sporty president.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

Despite being in generally poor health for most of his life, JFK managed to keep up appearances of health through many physical pursuits. On top of the rigorous activity of keeping his numerous affairs away from the public eye, he loved swimming, golf, tennis, football, and many water and winter sports. Said JFK himself, “Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity.”

BILL CLINTON

Though sports seem to have taken a backseat to other pastimes (such as food and young interns) with Bill Clinton, he definitely enjoyed the more leisurely pastime of golf. He is the most recent recipient of the PGA’s Distinguished Service Award, and therefore merits a place in the sporty presidents hall of fame. Aside from golf, Clinton was known for taking a few short runs a week, ideally to McDonalds or the like as seen below. GERALD FORD

It may be hard to imagine consider-ing the bald, bumbling image we have today of President Ford, but Ford has the honor of being the only US president who ever tackled a Heisman winner. This stud-turned-ineffective-president was courted by both the Packers and the Lions due to his stellar career playing football for the University of Michigan. If we consider that he was also a catalog model in order to make money for college expenses during this time, one could argue that he may have been the rare President who peaked well before he entered office.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT

Teddy Roosevelt was an avid boxer from his Harvard days, declaring it a “condensed way” to get quality exercise. He would frequently bring sparring partners to the White House until a fateful match in 1908, where an opponents punch caused blindness in one eye at age 50. That ended his boxing career, but he continued to follow the sport, and in his autobiography he claimed to have took up jujitsu as an elderly man.

Throughout history, Presidents

have made sure to engage

athletic pursuits in order to

show of their health and

youthful energy. From George

Washington (allegedly)

hacking down that pesky

cherry tree to Obama shooting

hoops with LeBron, our

commanders-in-chief love to

show off their prowess in

sports. Here are just a few of

our sportiest presidents

SPORTY PRESIDENTS

24


Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay

became the first climbers to reach

the summit of Mt. Everest when they

ascended the mountain on May 29, 1953. A

Nepali folk song, later written to commemorate

the successful ascent, describes the expedition:

“Our Tenzing Sherpa climbed the highest

mountain, pulling Hillary along.” Although

Norgay, a member of the Nepalese Sherpa

ethnic group, guided Hillary, a mountaineer from

New Zealand, Norgay has often been cast in

Hillary’s shadow. Following the feat, the British

Crown knighted Hillary while Norgay received

the George Medal, a civil decoration. Norgay’s

family and many within the Nepalese Sherpa

community protested this unequal treatment.

In a 2003 interview with The Guardian, Tashi

Tenzing, Norgay’s grandson, said, “‘It was not

fair. If the Queen had knighted my grandfather

it would have been a nice gesture. Without him,

Hillary would never have reached the summit.”

However, more than sixty years since that initial

ascent, a clear division remains between the

Westerners who climb Everest and the Sherpas

who guide them—lugging their gear and

clearing a pathway up the mountain. In order

to maintain an industry that generates millions

of dollars for both the Nepalese government

and Western outfitters, Sherpas are placed in

dangerous situations so that wealthy, novice

climbers can summit the world’s most famous

and romanticized mountain.

In Nepal, where the average person makes less

than $700 each year, the Nepalese government

pockets nearly $20 million in permit fees

and ancillary economic benefits from the

Everest climbing industry. While Everest can

be summited from its Chinese (northern)

side, most western expeditions leave from the

Nepalese (southern) side. Over the last few

decades, Nepal, one of the world’s poorest

countries, has become economically dependent

on tourism—much of which is generated by

the climbing industry. Climbers hoping to make

it to the top of Everest arrive in Nepal each

year, and pay outfitters between $40,000

and $100,000 to partake in a single climbing

expedition. Everest also provides an economic

opportunity for Sherpas, who can make up to

$6,000 each climbing season, which typically

runs from March through May. Because Everest

generates so much money for the impoverished

nation, the Nepalese government caters to

Western climbing interests. However, this

favorable treatment has often come at the cost

of Sherpas, whose attempts to petition the

government for greater safety and life insurance

rights have been futile.

The perils of being a Sherpa became clear this

April when 16 Sherpas were killed during an

avalanche after a 113-foot-tall piece of ice broke

off the mountain’s West Shoulder. Following the

accident—the deadliest in Everest’s climbing

history—tensions between Sherpas, the

Nepalese government, and Western climbers

came to a head. Sherpas, in conjunction with

the Nepalese Mountain Guide Association,

issued a 13-point petition to the Nepal Ministry

of Tourism. Demands included a $20,000 death

benefit, disability benefits for Sherpas injured

while working, and the establishment of a

memorial fund. While the Ministry of Tourism

accepted some of the demands, the government

was generally unsympathetic to Sherpa

demands in the wake of the accident. Despite

the anger and mourning within the Sherpa

community, the Ministry of Tourism issued a

statement that said, “all climbing activities will

surely resume in a day or two.” Although the

2014 climbing season ended a month earlier

than usual when Sherpas decided to temporarily

stop working so that they could mourn, the

government’s callousness towards the Sherpas

demonstrates the way in which the Nepalese

government, desperate for much needed

revenue, has come to support the interests of

Western climbers over those of its own people.

Western climbers were also dismissive of

the Sherpas’ demands and claimed that the

Sherpas were “Maoists” and “militants”—a

reference to the armed Maoist insurgency

in Nepal in the 1990s and early 2000s. Like

the Nepalese government, Western outfitters

have much to gain from the Everest industry,

with wealthy thrill-seekers willing to pay up to

$100,000 to check Mt. Everest off their bucket

list. As climbing Everest has become more

commonplace, Sherpas are expected to lead

less skilled climbers. While Sherpas continue to

carry typical climbing gear, including tents and

ropes, they are now also expected to transport

unnecessary luxury items including espresso

machines, heated carpets, and plastic flowers

to display at base camps. Though technological

advances, especially the bottled oxygen, have

made the Everest journey safer for Western

climbers, Sherpas, who are often given less of

this costly oxygen, still face great risk.

Despite the April avalanche, the 2015 climbing

season is expected to go on as planned. In the

aftermath of the tragic accident, the general

inaction on the part of the Nepalese government

and Western climbing outfitters provides little

hope that conditions will be improved for

the Sherpas that allow the Everest climbing

industry to function. While the Nepalese

government and Western outfitters stand

to benefit economically from the climbing

industry, it’s important to note that Everest also

provides Sherpas an opportunity for economic

advancement. However, the indifference

towards Sherpas’ rights and safety undermines

this promise.

Billie Mandelbaum is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].

Billie Mandelbaum

In order to maintain an industry that generates millions of dollars for both the Nepalese government and Western outfitters, Sherpas are placed in dangerous situations so that wealthy, novice climbers can summit the world’s most famous and romanticized mountain.

exploiting tHe SHerpaS

25


D ani Alves was fed up, fed up with the

racism of soccer fans and the seeming

indifference of soccer authorities. So

on April 27th, 2014, when a fan of the Spanish

team Villarreal threw a banana at him, he took

a stand: he picked up the banana and ate it.

His teammate Neymar and fellow soccer star

Sergio Aguero followed suit, taking pictures of

themselves eating bananas and posting them

online. The resulting media attention put racism

in European soccer in the spotlight.

Despite its newfound attention, racism

remains a major unaddressed problem in

soccer. In England, there were just five black

club managers as of last year. Following the

sacking of Chris Houghton, there are now no

black managers in the English Premier League,

the most prestigious soccer association in the

world. Other leagues do not fare much better.

Leagues have stepped up efforts in recent years

to combat racism. In England, this charge has

been led by the Kick it Out campaign, which

has been in place since 1997. Unfortunately, the

campaign has been riddled with controversy,

as many players have refused to support it due

to the perception that the organization is soft

on racism. English footballer Rio Ferdinand and

his brother Anton refused to participate in the

campaign following an incident in which Anton

was verbally abused by then-English captain

John Terry. Terry was caught on video allegedly

calling Ferdinand a “f*****g black c**t,” an

offense for which he received a four match ban

and a fine.

Despite attempts to deal with racism in soccer,

prejudice is still prevalent. Black players

still have to deal with monkey noises and

bananas, and the nickname of the Tottenham

fan base continues to be the “Yid Army.”

The conversations that have occurred in

response to prevalent racism are mostly empty

grandstanding; no real progress has been made.

To solve the problem of racism, real substantive

changes must be instituted. Soccer’s governing

bodies should harshly punish teams whose fans

are found guilty of racial abuse, and players

themselves must face more severe punishments

for their actions. The message that is being

sent today is that racism is not a serious issue.

Increasing the length of bans and the amount

of fines would be a solid start. In addition,

leagues across Europe would do well to institute

something along the lines of the NFL’s “Rooney

Rule,” which requires all teams to interview at

least one minority candidate when searching for

a new head coach. Until teams can prove that

they can hire black managers on a consistent

basis, something must be done to force them

to do so.

The main issue with something like the Rooney

Rule is that even if the managers and players

are minorities, most fans are not. Many

European nations are overwhelmingly white,

and thus the fan bases are as well. Players from

nations as diverse as Cameroon, South Korea,

and Brazil are playing by and large for white

audiences. This makes the task of quashing

racism especially hard. Being around minorities

forces people to confront their stereotypes and

assumptions. Thus, the best way to deal with

racism is to increase diversity. Unfortunately,

this is next to impossible in the real world.

Therefore, it is time to turn to the next best

solution: education. An increased focus on

educating people on racism and its negative

effects could help lead to a decrease in overall

racism. Soccer is the most popular sport in the

world, making it a perfect place to start a larger

anti-racism campaign.

It seems that racism in soccer has become a

microcosm of racism in Europe as a whole.

Europe has a poor history of integration, so the

globalization of soccer has forced the continent to

confront its racist attitudes for the first time. This

new conflict is exacerbated by the poor economic

situation in many countries, as poor economies

tend to lead to increases in racism as people

look for a scapegoat. Anti-racism campaigns

are therefore fighting an uphill battle, as they

are trying to combat racism at a time when

it is increasing throughout Europe. Neo-Nazi

parties like Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik

in Hungary, as well as anti-immigrant parties like

the UK Independence Party, are gaining popularity

throughout Europe. In Greece, this resurgence of

racist political philosophy overflowed onto the

field itself, when in March of 2013 Giorgos Katidis

celebrated a goal with a Nazi salute.

It is clear that we must attack racism at its

source. As long as overtly racist political parties

have support, there will be overt racism in

public forums such as soccer. It is only through

education and other reforms that racial

attitudes can be changed.

Max Handler is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sci-ences. He can be reached at [email protected].

Max Handler

It seems that racism in football has become a microcosm of racism in Europe as a whole.

raciSM in eUropean Soccer

26

political review | international

tHe retUrn oF tHe repreSSeD in YeMenAaron Christensen

F or a country supposedly obsessed with

the misadventures of militant groups in

the Middle East, the American media’s

silence regarding the ongoing conflict in Yemen

has been deafening. Perhaps this lack of interest

is grounded in the fact that Yemen, an arid

rectangle in the southwest corner of the Arabian

Peninsula, is the backwoods of the Middle East.

Yemen is poorer

and has a lower life

expectancy than

any other country

in the region. The

silence of the US

media has certainly

not been for a

lack of excitement

within Yemen—

on September 21, an offensive by Yemen’s

“Houthi” rebels succeeded in capturing Yemen’s

capital city, Sana’a, from government forces.

The Houthis are now in negotiations with the

Western-backed government to determine the

country’s future.

After the 2011 Arab Spring unseated longtime

dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen’s central

government has been struggling to cope

with three independent rebellions at once.

South Yemeni separatists frequently stage

both protests and terrorist attacks to demand

independence for southern Yemen, a region

with a distinct history and economic interests.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the

local al-Qaeda franchise in central Yemen, has

been waging an insurgency against the Yemeni

army and American drone campaign. Finally,

the Houthis constitute the biggest and most

enigmatic of these rebellions, and this rebellion

best represents the future of Yemen.

SuNNiS AND ZAiDiS

The Houthis’ formal name is Ansarallah (the

partisans of God), but they are better known

as the “Houthis” after the clan of their leaders.

They come from northern Yemen, where they

have fought an on-and-off insurgency against

the government since 2004. Whereas most

Yemenis are Sunni, northerners predominantly

subscribe to the Zaidi sub-sect of Shi’a Islam.

It may seem easy to write off their rebellion

as a simple Shi’a versus Sunni conflict, but the

reality is significantly more complex. The Zaidi

sect of Shi’ism is the closest to Sunni Islam, and

in past decades, Zaidis and Sunnis coexisted

peacefully in Yemen.

While there was an identifiable religious

divide, it did not divide the country into hostile

political camps. Saleh was himself a Zaidi, but

he fought ruthlessly against the Houthis all

the same. Sunnis and Zaidis in Yemen hardly

hate the other sect, and must invent excuses

for why they are fighting each other today.

Some Sunnis say that, while the Houthis claim

to be Zaidi Shi’as, they secretly belong to the

Imami Shi’a sub-sect (dominant in Iran) and

are trying to import foreign, Iranian culture to

Yemen. Supporters of the Houthis, in turn, claim

that their opponents are led by fundamentalist

Wahhabi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia. The Houthis

insist that they receive no Iranian support.

If they do receive Iranian funding, it is not

significant. The Houthis started their rebellion

on their own, and are friendly with Iran out of a

mutual hatred of Saudi Arabia and the United

States. Saudi Arabia has proven itself a strong

supporter of Saleh’s regime; in 2009, Saudi

troops intervened in northern Yemen and fought

the Houthis at Saleh’s request.

Although the Islamist and sectarian dimension

of the Houthi movement is undeniable, the

rebellion’s origin lies more in the Yemeni

government’s mistreatment of the north. Zaidis

were initially content with rule by Sana’a, but

in the 1990s, Saleh aligned himself with Saudi

Arabia and began promoting the Saudi ultra-

conservative Wahhabi sect. Many Zaidis feared

that they would be neglected or persecuted by

Sana’a, sparking a Zaidi religious revival that

morphed into the Houthi rebellion. Northern

Yemen is particularly poor and underdeveloped,

and the Houthis claim that the government has

economically neglected the north. One Houthi

spokesman recently claimed, “Our demands

are like the demands of the Yemeni people, who

seek a decent life,

a good economy,

security, stability,

[and] freedom of

expression”.

This is not to say

that the Houthis

are a lower-class

movement seeking

social equality. The Houthis are led by very

powerful tribal elders, after all. But it does seem

that a quest for social autonomy and economic

prosperity animates the Houthis. In ceasefire

negotiations, the Houthis routinely demanded

development aid and greater political autonomy.

Houthis wanted the Red Sea port of Hodeidah

added to the northern territory to give their

territory better economic prospects. Indeed, the

Houthi offensive that seized Sana’a began after

the government increased the price of gasoline.

the CeNter iN retreAt

The rise of the Houthis as a major force in

Yemen began with the 2011 Arab Spring.

Although Saleh resigned, his regime survived,

with Saleh’s vice-president Abd Rabbuh Mansur

Hadi succeeding him in a single-candidate

presidential election. Saleh’s old political party

still ran the government, holding a majority

of seats in parliament. Although the regime

itself survived, its power and authority were

significantly reduced by the civil unrest. The

regime was unable to provide safety and

services to peripheral areas of the country, like

the Zaidi Shi’a north. This created both the

motivation to stage an uprising, to create a new

government more responsive to the people, and

the ability to do it, as Sana’a’s authority was

weak in the north.

It may seem easy to write off their rebellion as a simple Shi’a versus Sunni conflict, but the reality is significantly more complex.

27


The Houthis’ recent advances have been

intermittent, in part because they lack the

military firepower to advance more quickly,

but also because their advances serve more

than desires of territorial acquisition. The

Houthi offensives have been bargaining chips

in negotiating with the central government and

other players in Yemen. Houthis would typically

capture an area, pull back or loosen their

presence, and then enter negotiations to receive

demands for a better political situation. The

seizure of Sana’a came after months of failed

negotiations to reach a peaceful agreement that

satisfied the Houthis. Immediately after Sana’a

fell, President Hadi began more productive

negotiations. After seizing Sana’a, the Houthis

captured their sought-after port of Hodeidah

without a fight, probably the result of a secret

Houthi-government deal.

Even as negotiations continue, the Houthis

threaten the government with a renewed

offensive if an acceptable resolution is not

reached. Interestingly, the Houthis have no

interest in running the Yemeni government, only

in lobbying it to fulfill their wishes. In different

negotiations, the Houthis have requested either

a handful of ministerial positions or none at

all. They want a new government that is more

amenable to Houthi desires but not totally

Houthi-dominated.

The rapid Houthi advance gave Yemen’s other

discontented periphery factions opportunities to

finally get what they want from the embattled

central government. Most notably, the Houthi

offensive is inspiring the southern secessionists

to escalate their protests for increased

autonomy. The Houthis have traditionally been

sympathetic to the southern cause, and have

demanded that southerners be well represented.

Although the Yemeni government is not under

Houthi control, it may find it difficult to resist

armed Houthi “lobbyists” in the future.

the returN oF the repreSSeD

Despite the conflict, Yemen is not splitting

apart any time soon. Secession is not on the

table for the Houthis; they demand autonomy,

federalism, and privileges for their region, but

have no plans to secede. The Houthis recognize

that the impoverished north cannot survive

in a vacuum. The North’s economy depends

on trade with the South. The South Yemeni

secessionist movement is not in any position to

create a new country, and must work with the

government and other Yemeni parties. AQAP is

making no progress in expanding or escalating

its insurgency.

One thing, however, is certainly changing: The

repressed demon of regionalism is returning

to haunt Yemen. Unlike failed states like

Somalia, Yemen remains one entity, but one

with powerful, competing parts. After the

fall of Saleh, many of the country’s tribal and

sectarian blocs began to make their weight

known. The Houthis are the most recent (and

perhaps most dramatic) example. Saleh’s

successors control the government but little

else. The central government survives in Sana’a

and the surrounding areas, but it can no longer

control the country’s peripheries. Indeed, the

peripheries are now trying to control the center,

as the Houthis use military force to negotiate a

good position in a new Yemeni government.

Yemen’s future will still be bleak, and conflict

is certainly to be expected. AQAP is not

going to lay down its arms anytime soon,

and the Houthis and southerners may very

well use violence as a means to secure an

advantageous political end. However, a kind

of federalist compromise is emerging. The

central government and those who support it

cannot control the entire country. The different

segments of Yemen are unable to live on their

own, so they now try to find some way to live

together. The peripheries can put demands on

the center, not so much pushing the center as

pulling it toward their particular interests.

For the United States, the fate of Yemen is not

of utmost concern, but the events happening

there should be disconcerting. Several years

ago, the United States could have negotiated

with Saleh directly and could have known that

he spoke for all of Yemen. Now, however, that

government is beholden to the interests of

independent factions across its own country,

pulled along by the appetites of its regionalist

drives. And however insignificant it may seem,

the Houthi phenomenon will not be confined to

Yemen. This is an increasingly common trend

throughout the Middle East, as long-repressed

regional, sectarian, and tribal divides resurface

with a vengeance. The internal divisions

papered over by authoritarian regimes are

splitting apart again. Where centers of power

once dominated, their peripheries are now rising

on their own. If the United States wants to take

advantage of a changing Middle East, it must

confront the painfully complicated realities of

situations that can no longer be ignored.

Aaron Christensen is a sophomore in the Collegeof Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

The internal divisions papered over by authoritarian regimes are splitting apart again. Where centers of power once dominated, their peripheries are now rising on their own.

28


W hen Jean-Paul Sartre turned down

the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964,

he quipped, “I was not aware at the

time that the Nobel Prize is awarded without

consulting the opinion of the recipient.” Few

besides Sartre have ever dreamed of turning

down a Nobel, widely recognized, in the

West at least, as the crown jewel of prizes

for writers, doctors, scientists, economists,

and statesmen. This year the Peace Prize, the

most overtly political Nobel, was awarded to

Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani teenager whose

eloquence and tireless advocacy for girls’

education has made her one of the world’s

most recognizable human rights leaders. By

accepting the prize, Yousafzai’s profile will only

grow and her work will undoubtedly receive

more attention than it would have otherwise.

But in accepting the Nobel, she has permanently

labeled herself as a representative of Western

values—a precarious role to assume if she

hopes to achieve real change for women and

girls in Islamic countries.

In the extremist paranoia of the Pakistani

Taliban, Malala Yousafzai became an American

agent when she started campaigning for girls’

education. Like the health workers leading

polio vaccination programs and the murderous

drones hovering overhead, Malala represented

yet another insidious and unwanted incursion

of Western interests into the conservative

Swat Valley and Pakistan as a whole. Taliban

gunmen attempted to assassinate her and

just narrowly failed: after taking a bullet to

the head in October 2012, Yousafzai and her

family fled to Britain to escape the Taliban and

receive intensive medical care. She instantly

became a celebrity in the West, beyond the

niche community of human rights

activists who had known about her

education work. She appeared on the

cover of Time magazine, chatted with

President Obama in the Oval Office,

and was the subject of numerous

star-studded tributes by Laura Bush,

Angelina Jolie, and Hillary Clinton,

to name only a few. Jon Stewart, in

what was perhaps the most fawning

interview in the history of The Daily Show,

asked if her father would be mad if he

adopted her.

Yousafzai has found that being adopted by

Western liberals has its financial benefits.

Besides the Nobel’s hefty award, her

autobiography I Am Malala spent 22 weeks on

the New York Times bestseller list. If she chose to

make the rounds on the rubber chicken circuit

she could easily demand a speaking honorarium

in the high five figures.

Though she has received the lion’s share of

attention, Yousafzai is actually one of two

winners of the 2014 Peace Prize. The other

recipient, Kailish Satyarthi, has spent decades

toiling in near anonymity in north-central India

to put an end to child labor. Despite threats to

his life and intense opposition from some in

Indian society, Satyarthi has built up his “Save

the Childhood” movement and helped an

estimated 83,000 children around the world

avoid forced labor.

Yousafzai’s commitment to her cause cannot

be questioned, but her future efficacy can

be. Unlike Satyarthi, she has not spent years

building a movement. Her charisma and cult

of personality can help win her admirers and

Western donors, but they make it more likely

that she will be seen as a foreign interloper in

Pakistan, where Angelina Jolie and Laura Bush

are less popular.

At least for now, it is far too dangerous for

Malala to return to Pakistan. She herself

concedes that living in Britain and associating

with mostly Westerners has limited her contact

with people in the Swat Valley. As nearly every

Peace Prize laureate has mentioned in their

Nobel lectures, social and political progress

cannot be achieved by one person—the best an

individual can do is inspire the people around

her to create change. While she has been

celebrated by some in Pakistan, including in

Swat, it will take decades of difficult work to

improve girls’ education there.

To some degree, Malala seems to have begun to

understand that she must be wary of the West’s

embrace if she hopes to actually have any

impact on girls’ access to education in Muslim-

majority countries. She has publicly criticized

President Obama for the American drone-strike

campaign that continues to wreak havoc on the

Swat Valley and the rest of Northwest Pakistan.

She donated the $50,000 award money from

the International Children’s Peace Prize (like the

Nobel, a Western creation) to rebuilding schools

in Gaza that were destroyed in last summer’s

war between Hamas and Israel. While both of

those gestures show Yousafzai’s willingness

to separate herself from an entirely Western

agenda, she will have to do much more in order

to establish herself as a reformer from within

rather than an outside agitator. By no means

will she ever ingratiate herself to the Taliban

(nor should she), but she will need local allies

and unexpected bedfellows if her cause is to

succeed. If Malala isn’t careful, the West’s love

will condemn her to ineffectual irrelevance.

tainteD BY tHe noBelGabe Rubin | Illustration by Savannah Bustillo

Gabriel Rubin is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

Yousafzai’s commitment to her cause cannot be questioned, but her future efficacy can be.

29


this November marked the 25th anniversary

of the fall of the Berlin wall. Today, decades

later, is Berlin actually united?

At first glance, it is hard to tell the distinctions

between East and West Berlin. However, while

the German government has spent vast sums

reintegrating the two regions, distinct markers

continue to separate East and West today.

East Berlin has a larger amount of prewar

buildings and streets, and the structures that

were destroyed during the war were rebuilt

using a distinctive Stalinist architecture. If the

architecture is not enough of a hint, then the

names of streets and other public spaces should

be a huge indicator of past Soviet influence.

In East Berlin, there is Karl-Marx-Straße (a

metro stop), and squares like Rosa Luxemburg

Platz, in addition to the occasional plaque of

Lenin adorning the sides of buildings. There

are East German murals still scattered around,

depicting smiling advocates of socialism. The

pedestrian traffic lights common in East Berlin,

the “Ampelmännchen,” (a little hatted man

either walking or with arms outstretched) is

also distinctive of the Soviet era, and is actually

making a comeback throughout all of Berlin.

Some of the aesthetic differences between

the two regions can be explained simply by

the differing poverty levels. In East Germany,

the unemployment rate is almost 10 percent,

compared to six percent in the West. While

these statistics appear drastic because of

the inclusion of particularly poor states like

Bavaria in East Germany, they still represent the

continued differences between the economies

of the two regions. The economic stratification

stems from East Germany being unprepared

for the sudden switch to capitalism when the

wall was torn down. Their new businesses

floundered and failed in comparison to the

already established Western economy, and have

never entirely caught up.

Along with differences in the economy, voting

polls show a dramatic difference in party

support in the different regions. According

to the BBC, East Berlin votes more left wing,

supporting parties like Die Linke, which emerged

from the old Communist party. In the West,

however, people tend to vote for either the

Social Democrats or the Christian Democrats,

both of which are derived from parties that

originated in West Berlin.

Looking at the migration statistics of the two

regions, this voting behavior makes sense.

According to a study done by Bild, a German

newspaper, one West German in five has never

been to the East, and one in ten of Eastern

Germans has never been to the West. The

massive migration to the West that occurred

right after the fall has finally evened out, with

almost the same number of people leaving East

Berlin as those entering. Many of those who lived

in the East during Communist rule have chosen

to stay there, exacerbating the subtle differences

between the regions in the next generation.

Nowadays, according to The Guardian, three-

quarters of the population think there are

different mentalities between the East and

the West, and one third of people from

the West would not consider marrying

someone from the East.

The statistics surrounding the poverty

levels and negative stereotypes of East

Berlin makes the new wave of “ostalgie,” or

nostalgia as it relates to the old communist

times, surprising. Such ostalgie is beginning

to change some of the aesthetics of Berlin,

such as with the increasing number of

Ampelmännchen throughout the city.

During Berlin’s anniversary weekend,

many hotels capitalized on this ostalgie

sentiment. The Kempinski Hotel, for

example, had a special package that

allowed guests to drive a Trabant, the

two-stroke car popular back in East Berlin.

Other hotels offered traditional East

German food, like solyanka, a soup that

originated in the Soviet Union.

The Communist regime is far enough

in the past that people are able to

romanticize the times of the wall. It is by

no means representative of a desire to return

to the Communist past, but is still indicative

of the persistent divide in mentalities between

East and West Berlin, and the distance between

the generations actually struggling through the

times of the wall and the new millennials.

Despite the differences between East and West,

there are still moments when the old divide

disappears to make room for something more

important. When Germany won the World

Cup, there was complete chaos on the streets.

Everyone was celebrating together, regardless

of their origins; everyone was simply German.

People proudly brandished German flags, a show

of nationalistic spirit rarely seen in Germany

since World War II. People were partying in old

warehouses and alleys scattered along where

the wall once stood; for a moment, there was

no way to discern the still omnipresent divisions

between East and West Berlin.

Katherine Surko | Illustration by Alicia Yang

Katherine Surko is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].

tHe SHaDow oF tHe wall

30

political review | NatioNal

in converSation witH econoMiSt alex BrillNahuel Fefer

A lex Brill served as the Chief Economist

of the House Committee on Ways and

Means from 2002 to 2007. In this role

he helped shape the Bush tax cuts, and worked

on a variety of other issues related to economic

policy. Mr. Brill visited Washington University on

October 30th, 2014 to discuss tax inversions, a

controversial tactic used by some companies to

avoid US corporate taxes. Before his talk, WUPR

had the chance to discuss a variety of economic

policy issues with Brill. The following excerpt

has been edited for space and clarity and is a

small piece of a broader conversation. You can

find the full interview on our website, wupr.org.

iNtervieW:

wuPr: I think it’s important to place our

conversation within the context of your broader

perspective on the challenges facing the US

economy. Now, Arthur Brooks, the President

of the American Enterprise Institute, recently

explained that over the past decade, if you

adjust for inflation, the bottom half of the

American economy has stayed stagnant or has

lost purchasing power. The data backs this up,

even though labor productivity is rising, median

incomes in the United States have stagnated

since the ‘80s. So, what’s behind this disturbing

trend, and how can we reverse it?

brill: So, Arthur’s absolutely right. The

economy, in the aggregate, and when we

measure it in the simplest terms, in terms of

Gross Domestic Product, or real GDP, the US

economy is growing, and it’s growing sort of

at moderate pace, could be faster, could be

worse. But when you peel back the onion and

you look more closely at the components of the

economy and you look at the economy from a

household perspective, you see, just as Arthur

has described, a wide variety of outcomes, and

the ones that are most troubling are when you

look at these statistics with regard to lower

income households, or as is often cited, median

incomes. So median incomes in the United

States are fairly stagnant. It varies regionally, it

varies depending on the data points you use and

how you adjust for inflation, but there is no story

one can tell that says that those right in the

middle of the distribution are experiencing a lot

of prosperity. So, how do you pull together those

two facts, how can the economy be growing

while those in the middle aren’t feeling any

better. It’s curious I think to a lot of economists

why that is. It doesn’t surprise economists when

the economy grows at a pace slightly different

than income grows, but in general as we invest

and as the economy grows, the benefits of that

should be appreciated across the spectrum.

Globalization is a factor, because we’re

importing more, because a lot of US workers are

competing with workers around the globe, they

have less power to negotiate for higher wages,

and some of it is simply not well understood.

wuPr: So if it is partially a bargaining power

problem, one solution the Obama administration

has proposed is a minimum wage, what impact

do you think that would have?

brill: I think that any concrete steps to change

the federal minimum wage are unlikely. But the

economics of that are an interesting one. It’s

moving clearly and concretely away from basic

free market principles where the wages would

be set in a market place, and saying, it’s just not

right for someone to make below a certain wage.

So as we artificially raise the wage rate we’re

going to see a substitution towards capital in

general terms, in practical terms, and we’re going

to see more automation and things like that.

wuPr: The empirical data on its effects is

mixed though, isn’t it?

brill: I mean there certainly is a debate about

what the market can bear. Obviously there’s

sort of a principle issue here: should the

government be setting a wage floor, and then

there are practical questions about what the

consequences are. As a practical matter it’s

going to depend a lot on where you set the

wage, where you set that floor. It’s going to

depend a lot on what minimum wages states

have. Many states have their own minimum

wage, either above or below the levels that are

being debated by the Obama administration,

and so the actual consequences are going to

depend on the specifics.

wuPr: Now you’re on the record as saying that

[the Bush tax cuts] made sense at the time, that

the goal was to reduce surpluses and that they

did so, they did so extraordinarily effectively.

But my question isn’t about whether they made

sense at the time, it is, knowing what you do

now about how that decade went, if you were

at the table again, would you recommend

implementing a series of tax cuts? Would you

change the policy? If so, how?

brill: So, we’ve had this debate, obviously, again,

because those tax cuts that were enacted in

2001, and extended a few times, periodically

do expire, and so lawmakers have had to face

this question: should we make the Bush tax cuts

permanent. We faced that choice first in 2010

and then again in December 2012. Lawmakers

said the first time, yes, we should keep all these

tax cuts just as they are, and the second time

they said no, we should keep almost all of them

the same, but we should raise the top rate. No

one has been arguing to truly repeal the Bush

tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts, you know, at the

time they were enacted… included significant

policy changes that certainly did not affect

only those at the top of the income spectrum.

Things like doubling the child tax credit from

$500 to $1000, creating a 10% bracket when

one previously didn’t exist spanning the Earned

Income Tax Credit, those issues have actually

never been debated.

wuPr: Most people agree that reducing

marginal tax rates, particularly for middle

income Americans, does have a stimulating

effect on the economy, because they have larger

“We shouldn’t try to craft our tax policy relative to the business cycle.”

31


marginal propensities to consume, and that

means they spend a lot of their tax savings, and

that helps the economy. But the question that

a lot of people are asking is how do the lower

marginal tax rates on the wealthiest individuals,

how does that stimulating effect work?

brill: In terms of the impact of marginal rates at

different spectrums the higher the rate is to start,

the bigger the impact is of a one point reduction,

in terms of the deadweight loss associated with

the cut. And so the distortions caused by having

the rate be 39% vs. 35%, are larger than when

one would examine the consequences of having

the rate be 19% versus 15%.

wuPr: Well the question is where are those

savings, there’s no question that the savings are

larger, but where are those savings going, how

are they used?

brill: So, those who are paying the highest

marginal rates are some of the largest savers

and investors in our economy.

wuPr: And outside of our economy.

brill: Right, and so it’s less about marginal

propensity to consume, and more about sort of

fundamental drivers of long term growth, which

is savings and investment.

wuPr: But in a demand deficient economy

the question of how this will stimulate the

economy remains, doesn’t it? Because, if we

have a demand constrained economy, then all

that saving can’t be used, or not effectively, to

improve the short term economic output, and

that explains why so much saving flows out of

the country.

brill: Yeah, and so for that reason I’ve argued

that we shouldn’t try to craft our tax policy

relative to the business cycle. That these are

actually not great tools for moderating or

accelerating demand, obviously they’re tools

that are often used, we often think about tax

policy as a means for a stimulus, but it would

be more efficient to think about it as a tool for

driving long term economic growth.

wuPr: Why is it that capital income, returns to

capital, are taxed at a much lower, and in a less

progressive manner, than returns to labor?

brill: I believe it to be the case that investment

decisions are more sensitive to tax policy than

labor market decisions. Both are affected,

when marginal rates go up, people may work

less, and when marginal rates go up people

may save or invest less, but those responses

are different. One could argue on a number of

grounds that we shouldn’t have this two-tiered

structure. In particular, recently people have

started to talk about raising the capital gains

rates in exchange for lowering the corporate

tax, maybe it’s easier to tax the shareholders

instead of the corporation itself, and I think it’s

an interesting idea in the context of broader tax

reform. The context of why it was reduced in

2003 was in part policy and in part politics. The

issue that was brought forward to Congress by

the administration at that time was in essence

a dividends reduction, a cut in the dividends tax

rate. That received a certain amount of political

interest, but perhaps not a sufficient amount to

get it over the finish line, so Congress added in a

lower capital gains rate. Now, that’s the politics

of it, the policy of it, the underlying policy is that

lower capital gains rates will lead to increases in

capital investment because of the sensitivity of

investors to taxes and the after tax rate of return.

wuPr: Again, assuming that we don’t have

demand constraints in place.

brill: Correct, these are long term impacts.

Nahuel Fefer is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

32


e bola took the world by storm a few

months ago, and panic has since spread

like wildfire through Africa, Europe, and

the United States. From Eric Duncan to Nina

Pham, each successive case of Ebola in the U.S.

shocked American citizens and contributed

to the Ebola pandemonium. After the first

domestic outbreak, Americans looked to Dr.

Thomas Frieden of the Center for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) for support and

leadership. After the botched response to the

first case of Ebola in Texas, Dr. Francis Collins of

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) replaced

Dr. Frieden as the new the face of the American

response to Ebola. To further coordinate any

potential outbreaks in the United States,

President Barack Obama appointed Ron Klain

as “Ebola czar.” As the United States struggles

to find an adequate medical leader to address

the Ebola outbreak, one key figure is missing. In

the midst of this crisis, where is the nation’s top

doctor? Where is our Surgeon General?

President Barack Obama nominated Dr. Vivek

Murthy as Surgeon General about a year

ago. His credentials are anything but lacking:

Ivy League graduate, co-chair of Doctors for

America, and attending physician and faculty

member at Harvard Medical School, all by age

36. Dr. Murthy’s experience suggests that he

is capable of overseeing the national public

health response and providing Americans with

up-to-date health information. So why has

this seemingly flawless candidate not yet been

confirmed as Surgeon General? Dr. Murthy,

like the majority of Americans, supports

expanded gun safety measures, such as an

assault weapons ban, safety training, and limits

on ammunition. Threatened by Dr. Murthy’s

“blatant activism on behalf of gun control,” the

National Rifle Association (NRA) has been

using its power as a political lobbying group to

oppose his conformation as Surgeon General. In

order for Dr. Murthy to be confirmed as Surgeon

General, his nomination must pass by a majority

vote in the Senate. Since his nomination, the

NRA has been collaborating with pro-guns

rights senators to engineer a filibuster. Although

the Democrats in the Senate had the numbers

to pass Dr. Murthy’s nomination, several

Democrats in red states feared that angering

the NRA would affect their ratings. To further

bolster the opposition to Murthy, the NRA

announced that they would score Dr. Murthy’s

confirmation vote. The NRA ranks Congressmen

on their voting record for gun rights; members

of Congress receive grades ranging from A to F.

In stating that they would lower the score of all

those who approved Dr. Murthy’s appointment,

the NRA scared off the necessary majority in

the Senate, leaving the nation without a Surgeon

General in its time of need.

Never before has the NRA expressed such

opposition to a Surgeon General nominee.

And rightfully so, as there is very little overlap

between the Surgeon General position and

firearm legislation. Yet, the NRA has a long

history of poking its nose where it does not

belong. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives has not had a

permanent director since 2006 because of

opposition from the NRA. Beyond federal

officials’ nominations, the NRA frequently

intervenes in politics to serve the interests of

the greater gun industry. In 2013, the NRA

successfully banned firearm registries that

“collect data on guns used in crimes.” The

NRA campaigned for and passed legislation

that “froze federal funding for research on gun

violence” that persisted until President Obama

overrode it after the Sandy Hook shooting. In

2011, an NRA lobbyist crafted a “pediatrician

gag law” that prevents physicians from

questioning families about guns in the home,

even though almost 9 children are killed every

day in gun-related accidents.

Gun violence is and always has been a public

health issue. Every year, over 30,000 people

die from firearm-related deaths. The American

College of Physicians states that “firearm

violence is not only a criminal justice issue

but also a public health threat.” Because gun

violence is so closely connected with mental

health, there has been a forceful call-to-action

for physicians to “become more active in

counseling patients about firearm safety” and in

recognizing the precursors of violent behavior.

The gun violence epidemic is exactly the kind of

crisis we want our Surgeon General addressing.

The NRA has no business interfering with a

position that has absolutely no influence over

the legislative side of firearm control. The

NRA is completely overstepping its bounds by

opposing Dr. Murthy’s nomination. The fate of

our Surgeon General, the top medical position in

the country, should not lie in the hands of a gun

rights lobbying group. We need more individuals

like Dr. Murthy who can stand in the crosshairs

to speak out about issues that matter. That sort

of open discussion and change can only occur

when our government officials stop representing

the interests of special industries and lobbying

groups and start representing the interests of

their constituents.

politicizing tHe SUrgeon generalRuby Arora

Ruby Arora is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at [email protected].

The fate of our Surgeon General, the top medical position in the country, should not lie in the hands of a gun rights lobbying group.

33


A dangerous and anti-intellectual way

of thinking about change is becoming

increasingly popular in progressive

circles. It assumes that social progress is

inevitable, and therefore inherently good.

Anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong—they’re

“on the wrong side of history.”

Often, that sounds something like this:

“It’s 2014. Let’s just legalize gay marriage

already.”

“Why won’t the Washington Redskins change

their name? It’s 2014!”

“It’s 2014. Women’s employers shouldn’t get to

dictate their sex lives.”

It’s worth noting that often, “It’s 2014” is mere

rhetoric. Someone who says gay marriage

should be legal “because it’s 2014” doesn’t

necessarily lack a logically sound rationale for

her opinion. She’s probably just trying to sound

punchy and persuasive.

So I’ll give progressives the benefit of the

doubt and assume they only use the “It’s 2014”

strategy for rhetorical purposes. Regardless,

it’s a horrible way to debate social issues—

irrespective of one’s stance on the specific issue

at hand. At best, to use “It’s 2014” to shut down

an argument is intellectually weak. At worst, it is

destructive and wrong.

It can be tempting to sympathize with those

who use “It’s 2014,” because they often

do so to strike down absurd or oppressive

opposition. However, that doesn’t change the

fact that it’s an intellectually cowardly tactic.

When someone says “It’s 2014” to shut out

an opposing argument, he isn’t engaging his

adversaries in a critical evaluation of the issue at

hand. He’s just trying to make them seem out-

of-touch. “You’re wrong because it’s 2014” is

essentially another way of saying “your opinion

is wrong because it’s unpopular in this day and

age.” It says nothing about actual merit of the

argument being posed.

Shouldn’t bad ideas die because they are

demonstrably bad, not because they’re

unpopular? I’m not a progressive, but I share

some progressive values. If an anti-progressive

argument is absurd or immoral, I want to see its

horrors exposed in all their wretched ugliness by

an intellectual and enlightened criticism. That’s

a lot better than “shut up you old fart, it’s the

21st century.”

Consider the NFL’s Washington Redskins. I find

that football team’s name incredibly offensive,

as do many others. But if I tell a supporter of

the name that she’s wrong because much of

America disagrees with her, I’m ducking the

question of whether there is actually anything

wrong with the name. A true intellectual should

have no trouble using logical reasoning to make

the case that the name is offensive. Why don’t

more progressives do so?

Progressives often use “it’s 2014” to combat

arguments that do have merit. In these cases,

this rhetoric functions as a silencing tool. It

seeks to preemptively shut down debate on

important, difficult questions. Fortunately, it is

often ineffective.

Such was the case in the debate over the

contraceptive mandate. Even before its

implementation under the Affordable Care Act,

the mandate—which requires employers to

cover the cost of certain contraceptives under

their health insurance plans—had been hotly

disputed. Critics of the mandate argued that it

infringed upon the freedom of employers who

opposed contraception on religious grounds,

while supporters countered that access to

contraception was a basic right.

There were two very legitimate sides to this

debate. Were women entitled to affordable

contraception, even at the expense of their

employers’ religious freedom? Reasonable

people could disagree here. But you wouldn’t

know that from the way certain progressives

treated the issue.

There was an uproar from the left when the

contraceptive mandate was ultimately struck

down in June of this year, under Burwell v. Hobby

Lobby. Jon Stewart devoted a characteristically

predictable segment to blustering hysterically

over the decision. The New York Times’ Paul

Krugman accused Republicans of trying “to

push us back to 1894.” The New Yorker’s Andy

Borowitz mocked the Supreme Court for siding

against women in a case that was ostensibly

“at its core about the rights of women versus

the rights of people.” These and countless

other progressives couldn’t seem to fathom

that “It’s 2014” had failed to trump the careful

consideration and Constitutional knowledge of

five Supreme Court justices.

But what if the mandate had succeeded?

Progressives would have gotten their way.

Change would have been advanced. However,

I would hope that no intellectually responsible

progressives would have celebrated such as a

“victory.” There is no dignity, and certainly no

glory in bullying, shaming, and silencing one’s

opponents en route to a political victory.

tHe proBleM witH “it’S 2014”Aaron Wildavsky

Aaron Wildavsky is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected]

Shouldn’t bad ideas die because they are demonstrably bad, not because they’re unpopular?

34


o n November 4, my home state of Florida

voted on the legal permissibility of

medical marijuana. It failed, but it is still

significant that Florida voters went to the polls

to decide whether the state would become

the 24th in the country to approve medical

marijuana. Medical marijuana is a nonsensical

term used to support nonsensical policies. There

is not enough scientific research surrounding

the effects of marijuana, and even if there

were, legally recognizing

marijuana’s medicinal use

and not its recreational use

ignores the vast majority of

marijuana users.

Under the Controlled

Substances Act (CSA)

of 1970, marijuana is

considered a Schedule

I substance, the most

rigorously regulated

scheduling classification. As a result, according

to federal law, marijuana has “no currently

accepted medical use in treatment and can

only be used in very limited circumstances.”

As such, research is extremely limited. The

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),

a branch of the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, administers marijuana

cultivation and research in the United States.

In theory, the NIDA offers contracts every five

years to interested researchers. Since the NIDA’s

inception in 1974, it has only given a contract

to the University of Mississippi. Dr. Mahmoud

ElSohly oversees the project, and he explains

his role as such: “The federal government is

the only agency, the only institution, that has

the right to distribute marijuana. We are not

doing it as the University of Mississippi. We are

doing it as a contractor for the government to

carry on that activity. So, the main purpose of

that project is to prepare, cultivate, standardize,

manicure, and make standardized marijuana

for research.” Standardization is critical for

scientific research, and the federal government

should be applauded for seeking the highest

standards in federal research. However, quantity

and diversity are also crucial to research. As

Dr. J. Michael Bostwick of the Mayo Clinic

has pointed out, the NIDA has “historically

focused its efforts [almost] exclusively on

demonstrating the drug’s harmful effects.” Thus,

research is limited to a small number of studies,

and the researchers themselves are predisposed

to assume marijuana is harmful. Dr. ElSohly

himself said, “I feel sorry for Colorado and

Washington state [for legalizing marijuana]. In a

few years, you are really going to see the impact

of the liberal laws they have there.”

If science is understood as a constantly

challenged or supported set of hypotheses

and theories, then the evidence cited offering

marijuana’s threat or lack of safety are rendered

moot by both their lack of breadth and their

inherent bias. The Drug Enforcement Agency

(DEA) claims that marijuana has no “accepted

medicinal value,” and they are correct, but only

because the research is so skewed.

Of course, prior to the CSA, there was very

little scientific testing of marijuana, yet the

federal government determined that marijuana

must be heavily regulated. Now, because of

its heavy regulation, only insufficient research

can be conducted to determine if marijuana

needs less regulation. Essentially, it seems that

federal law states, “We assume marijuana is

highly dangerous, so we must restrict access,

even to scientific studies. Also, because there

have been no studies, we can only maintain our

assumption of marijuana’s danger.”

Now, let’s say for the sake of argument that

scientists have synthesized the medicinally

active components of marijuana perfectly,

causing no side effects, pleasant or otherwise,

and that new substance was enshrined as a fully

legal drug by the FDA, DEA, and all relevant

federal institutions. Would marijuana advocates

be pleased? The many suffering people in the

United States using marijuana as medicine

to regain their appetite in the battle against

cancer or to alleviate the pressure of glaucoma

would perhaps be pleased. Today, smoking

marijuana is one of the most efficient methods

of delivery, so under this scenario those patients

may be pleased they no longer have to smoke

their medicine and receive

the (arguably pleasant)

side effects. However, the

legitimately suffering are the

vast minority of marijuana

users. Most people smoke

marijuana recreationally. Pew

reports that 12 percent of the

general American population

has smoked marijuana in

the past year, and that 27

percent of people under thirty

have. If we take those numbers at their face

value (and they are certainly low estimates) it

is obvious that either we have a silent public

health crisis, or that there is more to marijuana

than medicinal value. Whether or not “medical”

marijuana is legal will not matter for most users.

Law regulating use should reflect actual use.

States or the federal government should not

have to justify a largely recreational substance

based on its medicinal value.

I begrudgingly (and unsuccessfully) voted “yes”

on Florida Amendment 2, but in so doing I was

perpetuating the farce that marijuana should be

enshrined in law as medicine. Both the research

and the categorization are insufficient.

MeDical MariJUana iS a FarceJoe Lenoff

Joe Lenoff is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected].

The Drug Enforcement Agency claims that marijuana has no ‘accepted medicinal value,’ and they are correct, but only because the research is so skewed.

35


AD / illustration

35

politiCAl revieW | NAtioNAl

WUPR Issue 21.4: The Politics of Sports

Documents

politics of sports

professional sports

amateur sports

reality of sports

endless list of sports

american society

alex beaulieu

american enterprise