Enacted in 1965 and reauthorized four times since, the VRA is credited with significantly reducing voter discrimination with respect to race. Rather than making a binary decision to uphold or strike down the law, the Court will answer two key questions in Shelby: whether discrimination today is pervasive enough to warrant continued federal intrusion into states’ rights, and what measures Congress should use to identify likely sources of voter discrimination.

Individual Enforcement Will Remain

The most important part of the VRA is Section 2, which prohibits states, counties, and cities from enacting voting procedures that racially discriminate. The federal government, and specifically the Department of Justice, has power to enforce Section 2 through litigation. The DOJ may ask courts for preliminary injunctions to prevent enactment of discriminatory voting procedures, and private individuals can also bring Section 2 lawsuits. Between 2000 and 2009, the DOJ brought only 26 lawsuits under Section 2, yet the threat of litigation is often enough to pressure jurisdictions into election reform. However, Section 2 is not at issue in Shelby, and the DOJ and individuals will retain their power regardless of the Court’s decision.

Section 2, combined with the Constitution’s 14th (equal protection) and 15th (universal male voting rights) Amendments provides a basic level of federal protection of minority voting rights. Further, political pressures constrain elected state and local officials from enacting discriminatory legislation. Abigail Thernstrom, vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the author of two books on the VRA, noted this political constraint to the HPR, explaining, “it is politically impossible in America today to come off as racially uncaring.” Voter backlash against the Republicans’ recent immigration reform proposals is an example of this practical check, something Democrats are quick to highlight.

Is Voter Discrimination Still a Problem? 

The Court in Shelby will instead analyze the merits of Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA. Section 5 requires that select jurisdictions receive prior DOJ approval, or “preclearance,” before enacting any changes to their election procedures. Preclearance provides an early check for the DOJ to ensure that certain jurisdictions do not enact racially discriminatory voting procedures. Voting changes requiring preclearance include redistricting, moving of polling stations, redrawing precinct lines, purging voters, changing bilingual voting methods, amending candidate qualifications, and altering voter registration procedures. Section 5 was originally intended to be a temporary, five-year remedy. However, since 1965, Congress has extended it four times, most recently until 2031.

Section 5 is widely considered a vast expansion of federal power, necessary to prevent voter discrimination in the 1960s. Nevertheless, preclearance significantly intrudes upon traditional state powers to set voting standards. Such an intrusion may no longer be justified in light of reduced levels of discrimination. Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, described preclearance to the HPR as “a big blunt intrusion” into state powers that was “outside the constitutional norm and originally justified by … the exceptional conditions on the ground.”

In Shelby, the Court will determine whether the discriminatory conditions present in 1965 persist to an extent large enough to warrant continued federal intervention in core state affairs. As Kent Greenfield, professor of constitutional law at Boston College, explained to the HPR, “There must be a close fit between the exercise of [federal] power and … the potential violations of constitutional rights.” If the Court believes that substantial discrimination still exists, then it will likely uphold federal preclearance, but if it determines that modern discrimination tactics are neither prevalent nor effective enough to significantly impact minorities’ constitutional rights, then Section 5 will likely fall.

Supporters of Section 5 argue that, while the most heinous forms of voter discrimination are relics of the past, minority voter suppression still exists. Tactics such as unexpected changes to voting locations, voter ID laws, and the selective enforcement of criminal background checks by registration officials all constitute what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called “second generation devices.” While not as overt as poll taxes or literacy tests, these newer devices may be equally effective in suppressing minority voting. Bernard Simelton, chairman of the Alabama NAACP, explained the importance of voter ID laws to the HPR: “True, we aren’t facing the same things we were facing in the ‘60s,” he said. “But nevertheless it still achieves the same result: you don’t vote.” Supporters fear that if the Court strikes down Section 5, there will be no remaining constitutional check on these tactics.

Opponents of Section 5 claim that race relations have sufficiently improved to render preclearance obsolete and there is no longer any justification for the time and resources that the DOJ uses to process the 20,000 preclearance cases it handles each year. Further, opponents say the relics of voter discrimination that may still exist do not warrant the broad federal intrusion into core state powers. They are skeptical that subtler methods of modern discrimination produce the same undesirable effects as those pre-1965. These skeptics often cite the following statistics: among the 11 former Confederate states, eight have smaller disparities between white and black voter turnout than the national average, and among the eight states nationally that have a higher percentage of black than white voter turnout, four are former Confederate states.

How Should Congress Identify Voter Discrimination? 

The Court in Shelby will also determine the validity of measures that identify jurisdictions suspected of voter discrimination. Section 4 of the VRA establishes several tests to identify suspect jurisdictions. These jurisdictions must submit all proposed voting changes for DOJ preclearance. The Shelby case focuses on the Section 4 requirement that preclearance applies to any jurisdiction where fewer than half the voting age residents either (a) are registered or (b) turned out to vote. However, instead of using current census data, the VRA uses data from the 1972 presidential election. Section 4 captures nine states, as well as isolated counties and municipalities in seven other states. Thus, a key question in Shelby is whether 1972 voting data is applicable to measuring racial discrimination today and in the future.

Supporters of Section 4 argue that determining the proper identification method is a legislative decision in which the Court should not intervene. In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 4, and its reliance on 1972 voting data, for 25 additional years by overwhelming bipartisan votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House. According to Greenfield, these votes show that “Congress has given a clear answer” about whether to update the methodology. Similarly, Mr. Simelton said that in 2006, Congress “had significant evidence that this [method] needs to stay like it is.” In effect, supporters argue the Court should respect the separation of powers doctrine and defer to Congress.

However, despite the Congressional vote, Section 4 has become antiquated. Nationwide, voter registration is 59.8 percent. Applying the Section 4 registration requirement to 2010 census data, only Hawaii would be subject to statewide preclearance. Meanwhile, voter registration in the nine states currently subject to preclearance ranges from Louisiana, with the third highest state voter registration of 73.2 percent, to Texas, with the fifth lowest state voter registration of 53.2 percent. Overall among these nine states, voter registration is just 0.4 percent lower than the national average.

Pre-cleared states generally have a smaller gap between white and black registration than the rest of the country. Of the five states that have a higher percentage of blacks than whites registered, three are subject to preclearance. Meanwhile, of the 13 states with the smallest disparity between white and black voter registration, seven are subject to preclearance. Finally, while the gap between white and black registration is 8.2 percent nationwide, the gap is only 3.5 percent among the nine pre-cleared states.

Congress would never consider basing environmental or fiscal policy on 40-year-old data. Opponents of Section 4 say that federal policies on voting discrimination are no different.

Possible Court Outcomes

The Court largely has three options in deciding Shelby. First, it may find that voter discrimination based on race remains pervasive and that Section 4 provides an appropriate method to identify offending jurisdictions. This ruling would simply maintain the status quo. Second, it may find that discrimination is no longer prevalent enough to warrant federal preclearance. Under this ruling, individuals and the DOJ would retain the power to fight voter discrimination through Section 2 litigation, but the DOJ could not pre-clear states’ voting changes. Third, the Court may reason that voter discrimination is still significant enough to justify federal intervention, but that the current identification mechanism is outdated. This ruling would require Congress to utilize more current data to identify jurisdictions that discriminate.

Unfortunately, the public’s understanding of the Shelby case has fallen victim to media sensationalism. Like many cases that reach the Court, Shelby is more nuanced than a sound bite or newspaper headline. Contrary to general perceptions, a decision to strike down Sections 4 and 5, would not be an invitation to reestablish Jim Crow laws. Instead, the Court would recognize the tremendous progress the country has made in reducing voter discrimination and call on Congress to develop a relevant model, with current data, to continue this progress into the future. America’s ignominious history of racism and its current preoccupation with political correctness make it extremely difficult to debate any deficiencies of the VRA in a rational manner. However, both sides of this debate should view Shelby not a referendum on the VRA, but as an opportunity to determine the most effective ways to continue improving race relations in America.

Though Morsi has officially renounced his membership in the Brotherhood, he continues to act as though he were very much a part of the organization. Members of the press critical of the Brotherhood, such as Hani Shukrallah, the editor-in-chief of the English version state-owned Ahram news service, have been forced out of their jobs. And minority opposition groups, feeling underrepresented, have resisted the new Islamist-backed constitution that provides weak protections for many of the rights fought for during the Arab Spring.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (and its political offshoot, the Freedom and Justice Party) has accompanied the ascensions of other Islamist and Brotherhood-affiliated parties in the region, such as the ruling Ennahda Party in Tunisia, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, and the Islamic Action Front in Jordan. After the Arab Spring, many of these groups gained increased prominence in their respective political spheres, where initially they had gained popularity as opposition movements. The Brotherhood has since changed its focus to accommodate its new role in the political landscape as it has been forced to deal with the realities of political party life. Simply put, the Muslim Brotherhood faces a unique identity crisis as it struggles to navigate between Islamism and political pragmatism.

Band of Brothers

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, an Egyptian schoolteacher, with the goal of spreading Islamic law and morality through the region. In some ways, it was a reaction to Western influence. “They came into existence in the 1920s as a response to Western colonialism … and heightened Christian missionary zeal,” Yvonne Haddad, professor of Islamic history and Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown, explained in an interview with the HPR. “The missionaries at the turn of the 20th century were preaching that ‘Christianity is a total way of life,’ a phrase that has been translated into ‘Islam is a total way of life’ … the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In most Arab nations, and especially in Egypt, the Brotherhood was long known as an opposition movement critical of established strongmen leaders such as Hosni Mubarak. After the anti-Mubarak protests of the Arab Spring ended with the overthrow of the old administration, the Brotherhood organized the Freedom and Justice Party and won almost half of the lower house of parliament in January 2012.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to prominence was propelled by its excellent organizational skills. Every Brotherhood member is required to be completely loyal to the Murshid (Supreme Guide), who is currently Muhammad Badie, a prominent member of the group’s conservative faction. The group also gained support through its various social service operations that run and fund a series of charities that are active in everything from education to public health.

Such social services allow the Brotherhood to display its “ideological commitment to alleviating poverty, reducing inequality and increasing social responsibility,” Nadine Farag, who has researched public health in Cairo’s slums, described in a PBS report. Furthermore, such activities allow the group to garner support across a wide swath of the population. “It built up a strong social presence during the period of authoritarianism that it could use to construct an impressive vote mobilization effort,” according to Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University, in an interview with the HPR. In other words, many of those who voted for the Freedom and Justice Party may not necessarily have been ideologically in sync with the party; however, due to the aid provided by the Muslim Brotherhood, they were willing to support it politically. And with the superior organizational infrastructure of the group, these people were more likely to turn out to vote.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Until 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood was clearly defined as an oppositional movement, acting quietly against then-President Hosni Mubarak. According to Haddad, the fact that the Brotherhood had to operate for many years as a persecuted organization played a big role in establishing the perceived righteousness of the Brotherhood’s operations in recent years. But that cohesiveness—and very identity—was tied up with the Brotherhood’s role as a righteously persecuted group. Now, in post-Mubarak Egypt, this identity is increasingly in flux.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood has remained remarkably resilient to ideological change. It is “organizationally more rigid but ideologically more flexible than other [Islamist] groups,” Brown explains. “First, it is hierarchical and disciplined; second, it is gradualist and inclined toward compromise.” Despite the strong internal infrastructure of the organization, the Muslim Brotherhood allows enough room for a wide variety of viewpoints, from conservatives to reformers, political pragmatists, and religious fundamentalists.

This diversity in opinion has prompted various conflicts within the group.  Usually, the younger Brothers are more amenable to reform, while the elders are reluctant to abandon their strong Islamist underpinnings. Right before the protests that ended the Mubarak government, conservative Brothers kicked out many of the reformers. Many of these former members now criticize the movement and are beginning to ally themselves with the Brotherhood’s secular opponents.

Yet despite this intra-party conflict, the Brotherhood has become increasingly pragmatic and moderate. According to Brown, the priorities of the Morsi government are “governance and reform of the state apparatus”—not the establishment of sharia law, as some Egyptians feared. In an interview with the HPR, Steven Cook, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, added that Morsi and the Brotherhood share the same priorities: “it is clear that the Egyptian president does not make decisions without input [of] the Muslim Brotherhood’s guidance office,” as has been the organization’s longstanding practice of consultation among its leadership.

Thus, in some sense, as the Muslim Brotherhood has attained political power, it has become a political entity. No longer can its leaders focus exclusively on promulgating a religious agenda, because that strategy simply will not win votes. As Khalil Al-Anani at Durham University argued in an October 2012 article for Mediterranean Politics, “the language of politics is overshadowing [the Brotherhood’s] religious rhetoric.” Many Islamist groups are replacing outdated fundamentalism with pragmatism, attempting to co-opt major secular issues while maintaining their old structure and hierarchy.

Though the reality of competing for votes with liberal democratic parties has pushed the Muslim Brotherhood in a moderate direction, at the same time, the organization is still pressured towards conservatism. “Religion and speaking in a religious vernacular is a way for the Brotherhood and Salafist groups to advance their political agendas,” Cook notes. “In some ways, the most interesting and dynamic aspect of Egyptian politics is the competition among the Brotherhood, Salafis [adherents of a strict Sunni movement], and Al Azhar [an important university dedicated to Islamic learning] over who speaks for Islam.” The Salafist Al Nour Party finished second to the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2012 elections, demonstrating its significant growth. It is clear, then, that religion still garners votes in Egypt, and that the Brotherhood and the FJP feel pressure to use such rhetoric and policies in their political battles.

Step Brothers

The Muslim Brotherhood is presenting a mixed message: it appears to simultaneously communicate conservatism and inflexibility even while attempting to come across as moderate and willing to cooperate with the West. The Brotherhood’s response to a proposed UN declaration demonstrates these competing trends. On March 13, the organization objected to various aspects of a proposed UN declaration that condemned violence against women, joining the governments of religiously conservative states such as Iran, Libya, Sudan, the Vatican, and Honduras who disagreed with the declaration’s references to gay rights, abortion, and marital rape. The Brotherhood included suggestions that wives should be unable to file legal complaints against their husbands for rape, and that daughters should not receive the same inheritance as sons. However, the Egyptian envoy at the proceedings, Mervat Tallawy (a member of the liberal Egyptian Social Democratic Party) nonetheless voted for the declaration.

And while battles over the Brotherhood’s identity as a political force continue, the Egyptian government has failed to deliver on many of its proposed solutions to pressing problems. Police brutality remains rampant as security forces continue to kidnap and beat activists. Unemployment, the budget deficit, and inflation continue to rise, and the government is hoping for $4.8 billion in loans from the International Monetary Fund. Morsi was amenable to the deal, but “the FJP was concerned about having to run in elections after the government signed a deal with an unpopular international financial institution,” according to Cook.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been forced to confront new issues that it never would have considered prior to the Arab Spring. Now that it holds much of Egypt’s political power, the organization is forced to adopt new, more pragmatic policies. In a way, prioritizing governance has shifted the Brotherhood’s focus away from religion—an action that may fracture its old identity. Nevertheless, such a recalibration may prove politically beneficial for the Brotherhood in the long run.

Centuries later in 1989, Lucy Killea, a little-known candidate for the California State Senate would have her own confrontation with the Catholic Church. Killea was already serving in the California State Assembly and had adopted a pro-choice stance that she felt was consistent with her Catholic faith. The Bishop of San Diego disagreed and invoked Church law against her, prohibiting her from receiving communion in his diocese unless she stopped persisting in her “manifest grave sin.” Killea was catapulted onto the national stage and analysts attribute her narrow victory to increased energy among voters sympathetic to her cause.

Similarly, over the past decade, Catholic officials like former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, John Kerry, and Joe Biden have benefitted from their conflicts with the Church. Ironically, that is, the more the Church attempts to rein in the politics of its flock through communion, the more support it creates for the very policies it opposes.

Apart from this, American excommunication is fairly unique for two reasons. First, although official Catholic Church ideology is defined by global consistency, communion battles are almost never used outside of the United States. Second, although Catholic theology takes strong stances on a number of social issues including contraception, euthanasia, and homosexuality, politicians have only been denied communion over abortion. These conditions have less to do with the Church itself than with the power of the American pro-life lobby.

The Trench War Begins

The United States has had an especially energetic and persistent abortion debate in large part due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. In many other countries, legislative branches have settled their own abortion debates. Pro-life activists in those countries were able to accept that their voices had been heard and they saw their defeats and successes as democratic and more or less legitimate outcomes. In the U.S., by contrast, there is lingering bitterness over the Supreme Court’s power to elevate the conflict from the political realm and establish abortion as a right that women are entitled to.

The Court’s decision resulted in the immediate reversal of a majority of state laws and in turn stimulated strong and immediate opposition. In the early days after the decision, opponents attempted to organize a constitutional amendment blocking abortion but when it became clear that such an amendment did not have broad support, they turned to other avenues.

Though the Catholic Church was highly organized in its efforts to oppose abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, the decision ultimately created a significant spike in volunteers and donations to organizations opposing abortion. For the last 40 years, abortion has remained the signature issue dividing liberals and conservatives: it pits the right to personal bodily integrity against the sanctity of human life in the most essential terms.

Most importantly, unlike gay marriage and contraception, opinion on abortion has largely stagnated. According to Gallup, about a third of Americans favor overturning Roe v. Wade, a percentage that has been more or less stable since 1989. About fifty percent of Americans favor legal abortion with some restrictions, around a quarter favor legal abortion under any circumstance, and about a fifth favor criminalizing abortion in all cases. All of these ratios have seen no real change since 1975. As a result of this political trench war, activists have attempted to open new fronts on the issue by taking their battle to the pews.

Lines of Battle: Canon Law and Catholic Opinion

One of the most vocal advocates for the politicization of communion is the American Life League (ALL), a Catholic anti-abortion group. ALL is one of many grassroots organizations that was founded in the first days after Roe v. Wade. According to Judie Brown, the League’s founder, ALL was born from a conversation she had with several friends about the need for an “unapologetically Catholic” response to the decision. Thus, her organization has pressured Catholic bishops to enforce Canon Law 915, which forbids anyone who chooses to “persist in manifest grave sin” from receiving the Eucharist. In ALL’s interpretation, the law requires bishops to deny communion to all Catholic public figures who are pro-choice.

Brown insists that the pressure the League places on bishops is intended to accomplish purely religious goals. They are less concerned with influencing elections than with protecting the Blessed Sacrament from desecration at the hands of those who support the “murder of innocents.”

It’s easy to hear Brown’s frustration with all bishops who have not “done their jobs” by denying communion and her approval of the 15 or so “heroes” who have upheld the law. ALL is in the process of compiling a list of pro-choice public figures in every diocese in the United States and establishing whether each bishop is “in compliance” with Canon Law 915 or not. Yet Brown admits that, despite ALL’s pressure campaigns and what Brown sees as a clear canon law requirement, most bishops remain silent on the issue to avoid upsetting their congregations.

Michele Dillon, a professor of sociology and religion at the University of New Hampshire, believes that this silence can be explained by the widening gap between the conservative views espoused by Church leadership and the views of most American Catholics. Despite the Church’s opposition to artificial contraception, Catholic women are just as likely to use it as non-Catholics. The same holds true for procuring abortions and supporting gay marriage, according to Gallup. Catholics are distributed fairly evenly along the liberal-conservative spectrum and actually tend to vote more often with the Democratic Party. Although abortion is considered a signature issue of the Catholic Church, Protestants are more likely than Catholics to identify as “pro-life.”

In fact, many Catholics insist that pro-choice advocacy does not necessarily conflict with Catholic teachings. Jon O’Brien, the president of Catholics for Choice (CFC) argues that Judie Brown and ALL have falsely interpreted Church doctrine. In an interview with the HPR, O’Brien noted that in 1974, when the Vatican released its “Declaration on Procured Abortion,” it “expressly [left] aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused.” In addition, CFC points out that in the guide to “Catholics and Abortion,” canon law allows for many circumstances that mitigate liability including “grave fear, necessity or serious inconvenience.” Most important to O’Brien is the idea of individual conscience in making decisions, and he sees Church leadership as a source of guidance that is by no means final. Moreover, he believes that Church officials who fail to respect the independence of Catholics risk alienating their followers entirely.

No Silver Bullet

According to a study by Dr. Richard Hofstetter, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, liberal Catholics respond negatively to what they consider political manipulation by Catholic bishops. In 2004, when several Catholic bishops condemned John Kerry’s support of pro-choice policies, Catholics who had heard of the bishops’ opposition were actually significantly more likely to vote for Kerry. In Hofstetter’s sample of Catholic voters, 70 percent responded that the Catholic Church should not try to influence the Catholic vote. Liberals who had heard of the bishops’ warnings against Kerry were 25 percent more likely to vote for him than liberals who had not. Among liberals who were familiar with a doctrinal note from the Vatican warning against liberal politicians, support for Kerry rose by 18 percent and support among moderates rose by 31 percent. In the overall population, exposure to the bishops’ warnings increased Kerry’s support by one percent and exposure to the doctrinal note increased Kerry’s support by ten percent. Ultimately, even though Kerry lost the 2004 election, the bishops likely did have a positive effect on Catholic Kerry voters.

The backlash of Catholic liberals against the Church parallels the conservative backlash against Roe v. Wade. Both cases reveal the dangers of winner-take-all political strategies. Liberals and conservatives have spent the last 40 years attempting to move the abortion issue outside of the sphere of policy by either elevating it to constitutional status or framing it as a religious imperative. Instead of searching for the silver bullet that will end the debate on abortion once and for all, both camps would do better to let the issue work itself out democratically and defer to the judgment of the electorate. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like either side will be going to Canossa any time soon.

With a booming economy in the 2000s, it seemed like India was on the fast track to becoming a developed nation. However, recent slow growth has not only reigned in this optimism, but it has also revealed just how rampant government corruption is throughout the country. Major scandals in the telecommunications industry and the coal mining industry have come to light in the past year, rocking the country and bringing the current coalition government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh under serious criticism. Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer revenue have been wasted as a result of such corruption, and many fear this is only the tip of the iceberg. Some reports suggest that as much as fifty percent of government money intended for welfare programs and subsidies ends up in the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and influential businessmen instead. With 600 million people living in poverty, 300 million living without electricity, and 65 percent of the entire population under thirty-five years of age, most without any marketable skills, India cannot afford to waste any of its resources if it wants to improve the welfare of its citizens.

India’s Black Money Problem

While corruption scandals have made the headlines in India recently, the underlying issues have been deeply entrenched in the bureaucratic and political system for decades. Former Time correspondent Anita Pratap, in an interview with the HPR, claimed, “since the 1970s, no government has seriously attacked corruption.” Politicians and bureaucrats in India certainly have amassed a great deal of private wealth, much of which is black — deposited, untaxed, in overseas accounts. This results in a significant loss of revenue for India, with some estimates reporting about $419 billion in taxable income and profits being laundered out of the country over the past decade. Pratap noted that this loss of revenue stems largely from a treaty India has with Mauritius. “Indians can deposit funds in Mauritius bank accounts tax free, allowing politicians to ‘round trip’ their money — it comes back into India as white money through fake projects or to fund their election campaigns,” she explained. As a result, this tiny island has become India’s largest financier, which Pratap believes should signal a major red flag that corruption is taking place. In fact, last year, facing mounting international pressure, the Indian government adopted a tax code that will close this loophole for untaxed overseas deposits. While this reform is encouraging, the new tax code was supposed to be implemented in 2013, but it has already been pushed back to 2014, which means India will continue to lose sizable amounts of revenue for at least another year.

States Combating Corruption

Without enough revenue, the national government has been unable to adequately fund many of its welfare programs; however, several states have managed to fight corruption and execute innovative programs that have improved people’s standard of living. K.J. Alphons, now a Bhartiya Janata Party member of Parliament, spent twenty-seven years in the Indian Administrative Service doing just that. As a district collector for Kottayam, a district in the state of Kerala, Mr. Alphons began a literacy program that was free from outside monetary funding and, thus, corruption. He said, “Without any government funding, my administration rallied 14,000 unpaid volunteers to teach people to read.” By June 1989, Kottayam was declared the first city in India with a 100 percent literacy rate, and the methodology used became the model for the national literacy program, founded soon after. He went on to apply a similar methodology to immunize every child in his district, and in 1990, Kottayam ranked higher on quality of health indices than the U.S.

Other politicians have also led successful campaigns to bolster people’s standard of living and reduce corruption. In the state of Bihar, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, a member of the Janata Dal party, has significantly reigned in a once rampant crime rate by increasing the size of the police force and fast tracking the successful prosecution of over 79,000 criminals since he took office in 2005.

Chhattisgarh, another state in India, has also seen standards of living increased by eliminating corruption. Formerly possessing the most corrupt grain distribution system in the country, in 2003, the state introduced a program that sends a picture of a grain truck the moment it leaves the distribution center via cell phones to every person in the village, along with a message stating exactly how long it will take the truck to arrive. This technology has been so effective at reducing corruption that the World Bank recently declared Chhattisgarh’s distribution system to be one of the best in the world.

Balancing Politics and Ethics

These successes at the state level are encouraging signs that real change in India is happening thanks to the determination of various government officials who are serious about combating corruption. Pratap concurs, stating, “The system in India is good if you have the right person at the helm. We don’t need new institutions, and we have fantastic human resources, but often, politicians ensure their financial backers are given high government positions, rather than well-trained bureaucrats.” Consequently, in order for the entire nation to experience progress as a whole, strong leadership is needed at the national level, which Alphons believes is currently lacking. He describes the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, as an “honest man,” but lacking “the strength to tackle corruption head on.” In 2007, major licenses for airwaves on the mobile spectrum were unfairly allocated to thirteen companies with close ties to government officials. The Prime Minister wrote a letter to the telecoms minister, Andimuthu Raja, informing him that this process of allocation was not transparent and needed to be changed, but Raja disregarded the warning, and Prime Minister Singh took no further action. Alphons explained that the Prime Minister’s excuse for furthering pursuing Raja is that “he is dependent on the support of ten or twelve parties — the Congress party doesn’t have a majority,” and Prime Minister Singh did not want to risk alienating members of the coalition.

 Moving Beyond Scandal

States across India have proved that they can reduce and even eliminate corruption, that they can implement programs that produce tangible benefits and services for people, and that politicians and bureaucrats can work transparently to improve economic standards. Alphons, Kumar, and others have shown that strong, honest leadership is crucial to fighting corruption and improving the lives of their constituents, and this needs to be translated to the national level. Despite the current government’s less than zealous attacks on corruption, there are signs at the national level that it will not be tolerated. On February 2, 2012, the Supreme Court cancelled all of the licenses that were unfairly allocated in the Telecom scandal. With a strong legal system, prosecuting those who do not want to do business fairly is possible. Reforming the tax code is another step in the right direction, though it needs to be implemented quickly, and changing the election laws so that the monetary barriers for candidacy are lower could help citizens outside the ruling elite win more seats in Parliament and hopefully reduce corruption. From Kerala to Bihar to Chattisgarh, as well as in other states, the people of India have shown they will support leaders who fight corruption, so it is time for the national government to stand against those who want to steal from the country and instead stand with the people.

Image credit: http://marbaniang.wordpress.com

The way Professor Ferguson made the point, however, has rightfully triggered passionate outrage. Although there are differing accounts of what he actually said, the core of his comment seems to have been something like this: Keynes’ lacked due concern for the future because he was a gay man who was more interested in talking poetry with his wife than in having children. The suggestion being, of course, that gay people and the barren cannot properly sympathize with future generations.

Shortly after his remarks went viral, Professor Ferguson issued an unqualified apology in which he characterized his comments as “stupid” and “insensitive” and, a few days later, he apologized once more in an open letter to the Harvard community.

Going a step further, he reached out on his own accord to Harvard’s Queer Students and Allies and to the Harvard College Office of BGLTQ Student Life with the idea of orchestrating a community conversation around the issue of History and Sexuality.

The conversation eventually drew a sizable crowd to the Harvard College Women’s Center Lounge where Professor Ferguson, once again, offered an unreserved and unqualified apology for his remarks. By the end of the conversation, Professor Ferguson had spoken on a wide range of issues. Notably, in response to a direct question from a student, he addressed his longtime friendship with famed openly gay columnist Andrew Sullivan (who is the godfather to one of his sons and played a notable role at his wedding).

What are we to make of all this and how should we view Professor Ferguson going forward? That is a question each of us will answer for ourselves.

As someone who has intimately worked with LGBT causes for the last five years, I would like to publicly share my answer:

Apology Accepted.

Why? Because all of us make mistakes and what matters in the end, at least in my eyes, is how we respond to those mistakes. To be sure, Professor Ferguson’s comments were incredibly hurtful and offensive. No one, not even even he, disputes this fact. But does that mean he is beyond redemption? Is it the case that nothing he says or does can ever absolve him from his mistake? And if not, what exactly must he do to redeem himself?

These questions are, of course, not new to any gay person. Few of us have had the luxury of growing up in families or socializing with friends who have not, at some point or another, said something we found painfully offensive. But what would have become of those relationships if we had not, at some point or another, learned to recognize a sincere apology and respond with forgiveness?

Sincerity, perhaps, is exactly what some find lacking from the present situation. It has been suggested more than once that Professor’s Ferguson’s apologies are nothing more than a political stunt meant to save face. If you are seeking proof regarding the purity of his motives, all I can do is point you to his numerous apologies and continued attempts to reach out to the gay community. Beyond this, I have nothing else to offer.

In circumstances like these, perhaps gut feeling and intuition is all we have to fall back on. As for myself, I will fall back on the sure knowledge that if I have erred in judgment, at least I erred on the side of forgiveness.

The views expressed in this article are expressly those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of any organization of which he might be a part. 

Chechen woman mourns loss in Grozny, the capital city of the Chechen Republic.

As soon as the nationality of Dzhokhar and Tamarlan Tsarnaev was announced in the aftermath of the Boston bombings, misinformed statements stereotyping the Chechen people spread through Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. Not only did such updates and tweets draw a connection between the suspects and Islamic extremism that has not been confirmed, but they also revealed how ill-informed the public is regarding a region that has been troubled by years of violence. The history of Chechnya, where the brothers Tsarnaev are originally from, reveals a largely unconsidered angle from which the Boston bombings can be examined.

Historically under Tsarist and then Soviet rule, the Muslim republic of Chechnya declared its independence in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Unlike the case of the central Asian republics, however, Russia had always been keen to maintain control over this small enclave between the Black Sea and the Caspian. Between 1994 and 1996, and again in 1999, Russian forces brought war to the region against Chechen rebels, but — in spite of systematic attacks on both exponents of the separatist movement and civilians — the Kremlin was never able to completely subdue this territory. In the words of Elena Bonner, widow of Russian dissident Andrei Sakharov, Moscow’s violence in Chechnya has gone as far as to make it “one great concentration camp.”

Today, Chechnya hosts a traditionally Muslim population of about 1.3 million. After Akhmed Zakayev, head of the legitimate government of Chechnya, was last exiled in 2007, Moscow sent Ramzan Kadyrov to form a puppet government in the Republic. A radicalized Islamist fringe led by Dokka Umarov, however, has since resisted the authority of the formal government by staging violent attacks both in Chechnya and closer to the Kremlin. The attack that gave Chechnya international exposure, however, happened three years before 2007, when the Beslan school hostage crisis tragically culminated in 380 deaths. Russian president Putin has exploited the actions of this extremist movement to stigmatize the Chechen people and justify his strong hand in the region. In addition to this, the Kremlin is also strongly suspected to be behind the deaths of multiple dissidents who attempted to expose his crimes in Chechnya, like investigative journalist Anna Politkosvkaya, who was murdered in 2006.

What, then, does the tormented past and present of Chechnya have to with the Boston attacks? As far as the investigations go, there is no connection between the crimes of the brothers Tsarnaev and the extremist Chechen Muslim movement. In fact, the two men have been described as self-radicalized, even though they seem to have declared their support for Chechnya’s independence through social media platforms. There is, however, a subtler link between Chechen politics and the extremism shown by the two perpetrators, one that connects the American attitude toward the Chechen refugees and the personal attitudes of the Tsarnaev brothers.

Many members of the Chechen diaspora have sought refuge in Eastern Europe and central Asia. The Tsarnaev family itself emigrated to neighboring Kyrgyzstan to escape the Kremlin’s abuses. A very limited number of Chechen refugees, however, have ever been admitted to the United States, which allocates only an extremely small proportion of its asylum program to this region. According to Olga Khazan of The Atlantic, only 4 percent of refugee allocation is designated to Europe and Central Asia. Coupled with the general disinterest of the West, and particularly of the United States, in the Chechen situation, this factor — in addition to Moscow’s treatment of the Chechens — might have contributed to the sense of alienation experienced by the brothers Tsarnaev, who declared that they never felt truly integrated in American society. The self-radicalization that has led to the tragic events of the past week, then, can be seen, to a certain extent, as the result of this profound marginalization.

It is plausible that the Boston bombings will have dire repercussions for the Chechen people as a whole. Soon after the attacks, Putin personally called Obama to offer his support and cooperation. Moreover, he used the crimes of two young men as a scapegoat, playing up the threat that Chechnya represents for Russia and using it as a justification for his crimes in the region. Therefore, it will not be surprising to see Moscow adopt even more assertive policies towards Chechnya as a result of the bombings.

Rather than being a pretext to further stereotype a faith and a whole population, the Boston attacks should bring global attention to a real humanitarian emergency that has been overlooked or even ignored for two decades now. This is not to say that justice should not make the brothers Tsarnaev responsible for their crimes, but these crimes might have been triggered by years of injustice that should not be forgotten.

But May is also a time to recognize the challenges that Asian Americans face. One important yet often overlooked issue in the Asian American community is the dearth of Asian Americans in the performing arts. The issue first entered the American consciousness about 50 years ago, when theater companies such as East West Players and Asian American Theater Workshop were created in the 1960s and 1970s with the specific aim of promoting Asian American representation in theater in response to the racial discrimination that Asian Americans faced in the performing arts. There were few roles designated for actors of Asian descent, and extant Asian roles were often very racist and stereotypical. In addition, Asian roles were often given to white actors who would wear make-up that accentuated stereotypical Asian features, a technique called “yellowface.” This phenomena elicited controversies in major productions and films, such Madame Butterfly, Miss Saigon and The Good Earth.

Despite the progress that Asian Americans have made in their visibility in the performance arts, lack of Asian American representation in theater still remains a topic of concern. For example, the casting of the 2012 production “Nightingale” in Southern California elicited controversy, with critics pointing out that only two Asian Americans were cast in a play specifically set in ancient China. This recent controversy demonstrates the continuance of the discriminatory phenomena “yellowface.” Meanwhile, the disproportionate underrepresentation of Asian Americans cast in theater productions in New York, even in comparison with other minorities, continues to be a point of dispute.

Several Harvard undergraduates are tackling this issue by creating a new Asian American theater group on campus called “The Dis-ORIENT Players,” whose mission is to “encourage more Asian American participation in the performing arts, as well as to “[spark] dialogue on broader issues of cultural awareness.” The name of the organization possesses much symbolic meaning. According to Karoline Xu, the founder and director of the organization, the hyphen signifies the “hyphenated lives of Asian Americans,” in which Americans of Asian descent are never considered fully American. Meanwhile, the word “dis-ORIENT” has two meanings: a play on the word “oriental,” a term considered offensive by many Asian Americans, as well as a reference to the idea that Asian Americans’ “double lives” can be disorienting.

Xu first conceived of the idea for the theater group last semester when she became involved in Harvard-Radcliffe Dramatic Club and learned about theater groups on campus that focused on specific cultures, including Black Community and Theater (BlackC.A.S.T.) and Harvard College TEATRO!. “I realized that there was no outlet for Asian-American specific performances,” Xu told the HPR. “There is so much talent in the Harvard community and I really wanted to harness that into an organization that promotes Asian American culture through theater and give performance opportunities to interested students without previous experience.”

The organization plans to become officially recognized by Harvard College in the upcoming fall semester. Their first production, called “The Secret to Raising Successful Children,” will focus on modern issues that affect Asian Americans, such as family and cultural tensions and societal expectations. After this production, the organization will continue to hold different productions that address Asian American historical and cultural issues each semester. All students, not just Asian Americans, are welcome to join the staff or audition for roles in productions.

Just as a theater group for black Americans and Latino Americans are important on campus, a theater group tailored to Asian Americans also proves necessary. The Dis-ORIENT Players will provide a much-needed space in which students can open up dialogue about issues that affect the Asian American community, share Asian American experiences and help Asian Americans shape their own identity and image. Such discourse will help challenge the discriminatory “oriental” image often imposed upon them by society, defying the racial stereotypes that hyper-sexualize Asian women, emasculate Asian men and portray all Asians as subservient.

Moreover, encouraging Asian American students to become involved in theater will help break down potential barriers for participation and ultimately help increase visibility of Asian Americans in the performing arts. Even at Harvard, lack of Asian American actors in student productions is evident. The casting for productions is usually very white-dominated, particularly for major roles, and very few minority actors, let alone Asian American actors, can be seen. The exact source of this underrepresentation of Asian Americans in theater is unclear. It could be attributed to lack of Asian Americans who audition, perhaps due to discouragement in Asian families or culture to join theater, the lack of Asian American actors on stage who can serve as role models or the inherent belief that Asian Americans will not be cast in major roles. It could also be attributed to inherent bias on the parts of casting directors who refuse to cast Asians, not only for roles that are specifically designated for Asians, but also for non-race specific roles or roles in which race is specified but does not inherently matter, a decision that may be influenced by audience perception. Most likely, it is a combination of both. Either way, it is important to encourage Asian American participation and help break the cycle of Asian American underrepresentation in theater.

The establishment of an Asian American theater group at Harvard symbolizes a step forward for Asian Americans in achieving racial equity in theater. By serving as a venue for Asian Americans in theater, The Dis-ORIENT Players will help foster diversity and promote cultural awareness in the Cambridge community. Harvard undergraduates, whether of Asian descent or not, should join the organization in the fall as a staff member or audition to be a performer. By doing so, they can support the effort to increase minority involvement in theater.

Photo credit: Audrey Magazine

The Oath of Horatii

Four semesters ago, Harvard introduced the Freshman Pledge system. It was a call for freshmen to reaffirm the values of integrity and kindness that was met with little fanfare. At the time, the general consensus was that the pledges were an overbearing move that overstepped the institution’s mission. This very publication referred to the pledge as a “halfhearted attempt at addressing a non-issue.”  The accepted wisdom in fall of 2011 was that Harvard’s commitment to academic excellence was more important than reaffirming abstract values.

In the intervening year, a series of scandals have made a central statement of values seem less ludicrous. Cheating scandals in Quiz Bowl and Government 1310 cast shadows on our integrity, and the mental health debate revealed that many students do not feel that their peers value their wellbeing. In both the cheating scandal and the mental health discussions, much of our criticism has been focused on the administration. We’ve called for resignations over the mishandling of the cheating scandal and rallied against the structural barriers to mental health at UHS. On the other hand, we remain rather unenthusiastic to the university’s efforts to reaffirm our positive values through the creation of an honor code.

Although all 7,000+ of us received a link to the newly proposed honor code in our emails, few of us actually read it and only a handful publicly responded to it via the discussion board. Over 50 students proudly posted their name on the College Event Board’s discussion board during the Tyga debate, yet only seven have posted responses to the newly proposed honor code. The general sense is that honor code or no honor code, Harvard’s high-pressure culture will remain the same.

This logic assumes that most Harvard students truly do value success over integrity, while the opposite is true. A survey of the Class of 2004 found that while Harvard students list hard work, honesty, and respect as their top values, they thought success was more valued by Harvard as an institution. Thus, what is often conceived of as a problem of values is actually a problem of perception. In a sense, the critics are correct; establishing an honor code is not likely to fundamentally alter the values of Harvard students. That’s because Harvard students are no less concerned with values than students at other universities. We just think we are. In conversations with friends we obsess about the culture of success while lauding ourselves for being morally above average. We fear telling our friends that we are stressed out, or that we are barely coping, or that we feel inadequate and then in an ironic twist of fate we see those same friends in the waiting room for Mental Health Services. If we take the honor code seriously, and truly take ownership of it, it won’t necessarily transform us, but it will transform the way we see each other.

There is already significant evidence that honor codes reduce academic dishonesty. In The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, Dan Ariely found that declarations of morals lower the likelihood of plagiarism and cheating. Another study on honor codes published in 2002 found that one’s perception of his or her peers is a greater predictor of cheating than the fear of being caught or the potential severity of penalties. While in the fall of 2011, statements of values seemed frivolous and unrelated to Harvard’s educational mission, these studies and the events of the past year show that the two are tightly linked. When we cannot trust that our peers will treat us with kindness and integrity, we are less likely to collaborate or take risks. We are more likely to settle for easy or stolen victories than strive towards true excellence. We shouldn’t let the administration off the hook for their role in the current ethical crisis, but we shouldn’t let ourselves off the hook either.

You can access additional content by subscribing to our YouTube channel and visiting our iTunes page.

Editing and Production by Jenny Choi
Interview by Colin Diersing
Music by Dylan Perese

Read the full article here.

You can access additional content by subscribing to our YouTube channel and visiting our iTunes page.

Editing and Production by Jenny Choi
Interview by Colin Diersing
Music by Dylan Perese