It’s simple. When all the sane options are gone, the crazy ones start to look pretty good. If no Republican candidate arrives in Tampa with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, the game will change instantly. Depending on the final count, Ron Paul, in particular, will be angling for influence and a role as kingmaker. But more importantly, the Republican establishment (which is to say, the people at the convention), will face the very real prospect of choosing between a messy, undemocratic process that nominates a bad candidate (a hugely weakened Romney, an insurgent-yet-unelectable Santorum), or a messy, undemocratic process that nominates somebody that can, you know, win. A brokered convention would be a media circus, and it could very well damage the GOP enormously. On the other hand, it could be the best thing that’s happened to the party in a long time. It would keep a damaged Romney from dragging down the rest of the Republican ticket, and it would allow the GOP to choose from among a new set of champions, ones with names like Daniels, Christie, and (dare I say it?) even Bush. The risks are enormous, but barring wild cards like Iran, the European debt crisis, or a downturn in the Chinese economy, President Obama is looking stronger every day. Praying for a brokered convention may be reckless, but it’s a better plan than the one Republicans appear to have now: roll over and lose.

As President Barack Obama put it in a November 2010 speech, the Constitution of India and the United States Constitution “begin with the same revolutionary words.” Those words, of course, are “We the People.”

This may seem to be a coincidence of diction, but the rights and ideals of democracy and personal freedom enshrined in India’s 1949 constitution bear a striking resemblance to those articulated in Philadelphia.

India, however, is a lonely proponent of these ideals among large, developing nations. The Chinese Communist Party does not care about personal liberty, human rights, or market capitalism, and China has been the belle of the BRIC ball for so long that the future of these principles seem to be in grave danger. This has contributed to the fit of anxiety currently gripping academia and punditry throughout the United States. In the midst of this new “Age of Anxiety,” it is worth remembering that even as other powers rise, perhaps it is too early to ring the death knell for liberalism, democracy, and the current international order. One of the biggest bright spots in the field right now is a rising, democratic, and dynamic India. Strengthening ties with the world’s largest democracy will be one of the most important aspects of American grand strategy in this century. Within the next few decades, India will be not only one of the largest and fastest growing economies, but the world’s most populous country. In supporting a rising India, America receives not only a strategic partner, but a powerful and proud advocate for democracy.

But we can’t rise for them, of course, and as with any ally, we can’t force them to see eye-to-eye with us on every topic. I don’t mean to imply that we can pull a lever in Washington and instantly have a servile, wealthy India at our disposal. Skeptics of India-US relations, such as the Carnegie Endowment’s George Perkovich, seem to think that this is what my kind of optimism entails. India remains relatively poor, impoverished with regards to infrastructure, at odds with Pakistan, and pretty chaotic (I’m thinking of issues like Maoist rebels in Jharkhand, not bumpy taxi rides). In spite of these near-term challenges, the long-term outlook for cooperation looks bright. Here are just a few potential areas for strategic cooperation between the US and India:

The Pivot & The Maintenance of Free Access to Global Commons

The Obama Administration’s “Pivot” to East Asia coincides nicely with India’s recent “look east” policy, and both countries have begun to see how crucial East and Southeast Asia are for economic and security reasons.

The Promotion of Democracy

As the world’s largest democracy, at times India is described as having “too much democracy.” But in terms of democracy promotion, India could prove to be a useful partner to the US. I don’t have another Iraq in mind, and as in the case of Iran, India cannot be expected to sacrifice its strategic necessities to help the US. Nonetheless, there is opportunity here, and we should seek include India in any future endeavors.

Counterterrorism Efforts

As the 2008 and 2011 terrorist strikes against Mumbai make perfectly clear, terrorism is a much more immediate and present threat to Indians than to Americans. Because terrorism is such a threat to India, it is a natural partner in the fight against extremists and terrorists throughout the world.

Strengthening a Liberal International Order

India provides a model for other democratic developing nations, and is an important contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. Due to its liberal, democratic values, India’s growth on the international scene will help to strengthen the liberal international order built by the US and its allies after World War II.

These are just a few of the reasons why I have fallen in love with the idea of India becoming a closer strategic partner of the United States. And you should, too.

This continuation of the recession is most likely due to the fact that the combination of aid and austerity measures necessitated by it are causing a massive change in the economic and political structure of Greece. Before the recession, the public center in Greece accounted for 40 percent of the GDP. The service sector, composing 70 percent of the Greek workforce has been severely hit by the recession, with the most recent unemployment numbers comprising 20.9 percent of all Greek workers.

Despite the continual giving of aid, this continued recession, fueled by the massive decrease in spending since the mid-2000s, does not seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. The most frightening of all of the statistics, to me at least, is that the rate of youth unemployment is nearing 50 percent. One in two young Greek citizens does not have a job and increased austerity measures are not likely to help this number at all. What is strange about the measures advocated by Germany and the European Union is that, in addition to decreasing pensions and healthcare spending, they are attempting to cut the size of the Greek public sector workforce. This is strange because it is not the approach that Germany took to successfully steer themselves away from the deep recession and high unemployment numbers that are plaguing much of the rest of the world right now. Germany’s policies in the wake of the recession did not cut the workforce, but instead cut the hours of each worker, keeping Germans employed. This is why Germany’s unemployment rate is in the six percent range and why any protests in Germany have been shadows compared to the Greek, Italian, or Occupy Wall Street protests.

This increase in unemployment also underscores the distinguishing aspect of the anger in the Greek protests. While some may view the key features of the Greek and Italian (or, for that matter, German) state-sponsored economies as large pensions and large healthcare spending, in reality it is the expectation (or entitlement if you’re Mitt Romney) of employment for its citizens.

The violence in Greece is not only in response to a change in policy by the government via the European Union, but to a change in Greek political culture. Accompanying this change in political culture is a generation of young Greeks who are angry, unemployed, and – following this period of unemployment – most likely under-skilled and perhaps unemployable in the long term. In turn, this violence hurts the large part of Greece’s GDP based on tourism. These factors and Greece’s resistance to change could ultimately lead to a very long protracted recovery process. The weight of expectation and the weight of a political culture on a country that has had a state-sponsored economy may prove to be too much for this Sisyphean effort in the Eurozone. Even if Europe continues to support an atrophic Greece, the radical changes to Greek society that would be involved in this path to solvency may necessitate an uphill push of that boulder for the foreseeable future.

Chávez Wins Reelection Amidst Fraud and International Disgust

Venezuela holds presidential elections this year as well, pitting incumbent international curmudgeon and “Bolivarian Socialist” Hugo Chávez against opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski. Radonski is the current governor of Miranda state (and an iffy Columbia alumnus). Venezuelan opposition parties, while widely-varying in political ideology but uniformly opposed to Chávez, united to elect him as their collective candidate earlier this month. Chávez has amended the Constitution numerous times, eliminating term limits and centralizing power at the expense of press freedoms, human rights, and basic quality of life. He has previously claimed that he will stay in power till 2031. However, opposition groups have reason to feel optimistic. They won a majority of votes in the Parliamentary contest in 2010; however, due to Chávez’s redrawing of districts, they were denied a congressional majority. Chávez himself appears to be taking this latest challenge seriously: He has launched a mud-slinging campaign that has shocked the international community with its anti-Semitic and homophobic attacks. I predict a Chávez win; the system is simply stacked too high against Capriles.

Enrique Peña Nieto Wins Mexican Presidency

Widespread resentment over Mexican President Felipe Calderón’shandling of the drug war in Northern Mexico has inflamed public opinion against his National Action Party (PAN). PAN broke the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) 70-year stranglehold on Mexican politics with the election of Calderón’s predecessor, Vicente Fox, in 2000. That election promised a new era of openness in the Districto Federal. But 12 years is a long time, and Nieto has provided a fresh new face to a reenergized party. He leads most polls by a wide margin. However, Calderón’s party has responded by selecting Josefina Vázquez Mota, a 51-year old mother of three, as their candidate. She is the first female presidential candidate of a major Mexican political party.

Hispanic Vote Fails to Show Up Yet Again

This is a big year for us too: The American presidential election will be contested later this fall. As might be expected, coverage of the race is widely broadcast throughout Latin America; I have found my South American friends to be, at times, more informed about US politics than we are. However, the same cannot be said about Hispanic voters at home. In 2009, the United States Census estimated that over the course of four years, the number of Hispanic voters grew by nearly 30 percent. However, raw numbers rarely translate directly into increased participation. In the last decade, the Hispanic population in the United States grew by a whopping 43 percent, the equivalent of 15 million persons. In the Electoral College behemoths of Texas and California, the Census estimated that Hispanics made up 40 percent of the population. However, Hispanic votes only accounted for 7.4 percent of votes in 2008. While the fight over immigration will almost certainly boost Hispanic participation rates, I have a difficult time believing that this long-term behavior will change overnight.

Castro Finally Kicks It

God willing, this is the year Comrade Fidel finally kicks the bucket. Okay, I have no statistical or scientific basis for this prediction; it’s more wistful dreaming than anything else. It’s bound to happen soon, with the rusty 86-year-old revolutionary approaching his 53^rd year behind the scenes in Cuba. While his death would mean little in the practical day-to-day “running” of the country (since he ceded power to his brother Raúl in 2006), it would provide a metaphorical ending to a long and painful chapter in the country’s history. Raúl’s government has made overtures to human rights and economic reforms. I predict that the looming end of Fidel will further motivate their implementation, as old members of the Communist Party’s vanguard seek to avoid any large-scale unrest following his death.

The treaty in its original form was not at all conceived by the European Union – rather, it was the product of talks between the United States and Japan. As talks progressed, the first European body (read: the first organization from Europe at all) to enter negotiations was the European Commission, seeking a mandate from the European Parliament to negotiate the treaty. Lest any American or otherwise non-European readership confuse the numerous and similarly named organs of the EU, the Commission is what I will call a “secondarily democratic” body. Much like the Supreme Court Justices, the Commission is formed by appointments made by democratically elected leaders, namely the European Parliament (directly elected) and executive heads of the member states (also democratically elected, though the processes vary by national constitution).

Shortly after the Commission sought this mandate, the Council of the European Union, comprised of ministers from member states, publicly showed support for ACTA through a resolution. Since this time, negotiations on behalf of the EU as a whole began, and various member states have signed the agreement, putting us at the present situation.

It is key to keep in mind here that the European Union is primarily an economic partnership. Its very existence came about as the product of several trade agreements, and therefore, it is understandable that its primary focus is of an economic nature. Strictly speaking, ACTA stands to protect intellectual property, which is in the economic interest of capitalistic societies, including the Union at large. When viewed in this light, there can be little confusion as to why the Commission and the Council sought to include themselves in the development of the treaty. Furthermore, as the institution that binds all of its member states, the European Union exercises considerable soft power in its agenda-setting abilities – soft power overwhelmingly found in the hands of two relatively small, secondarily democratic bodies.

If citizens of the European Union – or rather, of the twenty-seven sovereign bodies that make up the Union – are truly upset about the situation, they need to take a hard look at the structure of the Lisbon Treaty and recognize the ensuing drop in their power to make decisions independently of their neighbors. Furthermore, they should seek transparency and accountability in their supranational leaders as well as their national ministers, for the secondary democratic bodies enjoy unprecedented power, hard and soft, over all members. Free speech and human rights are on the line, and it would be ill advised to leave the decision to an economically minded institution.

This is Columbia Political Review’s new running feature – Political Minutes – where we provide coverage of political events happening across campus and New York City. If you know of an event or want coverage, let us know!  

Turath, the Arab Students Group, hosted a debate last night on President Obama’s Middle East Foreign Policy that brought together the College Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, and The Current (Jewish-affairs magazine). CPR’s very own Hadi Elzayn gave the opening remarks prior to the debate, eloquently portraying the difficulties and complications associated with Middle Eastern policy. In their opening remarks, all groups set the stage for the perspectives through which they would be arguing for the night.

Breaking the debate into five main topics (Islamism & Extremism, Palestine & Israel Conflict, Religious Freedom, Women’s Rights, Markets & Development), Turath’s Deena Elkafrawi and Rhonda Shafei moderated the debate and later opened up the discussion to an audience Q&A.

The participants seemed to largely agree on their views on Islamism & Extremism, barring the Libertarians, who questioned why the United States must involve itself in Middle Eastern affairs at all and asserted that such action does nothing to reduce extremism in the Middle East. This piqued opposition from members of The Current magazine, and the Socialists, who pointed to the example of Libya in which intervention had an ostensibly positive outcome.

The Debate over the Palestine & Israel Conflict was the most heated of the night. The Republicans came out supporting a two-state solution, while the Socialists argued that a two-state solution was empirically unfeasible and would not end in a just outcome. Current took issue with a comment from the Socialists during their speech, referring to Israel as the “so-called Jewish State.” The Socialists responded, saying that calling Israel a Jewish state is by definition racist as it ignores the non-Jewish population that accounts for 20 percent of the state. While tensions seemed to be rising, the Libertarians drew some laughter from the crowd, remarking that Israel and Palestine are not on the United States’ map and should, therefore, not be an issue for Americans.

Later in the debate, all parties appeared to unanimously agree that democracy in the Middle East did not have to follow an American mold, with Republicans themselves pointing out that Iraq was a great example of the failure of blindly enforcing US values abroad. When asked if the United States should cut its aid to Egypt as a result of its crackdown on American NGOs, the Democrats responded with caution, stating that the United States should be patient and respect the sovereignty of Egypt. Following up on this, the Libertarians questioned why, if sovereignty was a key issue, the Libyan intervention took place, which served as a segue to the question posed by the moderators to the Socialists, asking if the United States should replicate the Libyan model to overthrow the authoritarian regime in Syria. Surprisingly, the Socialists, who previously commended the Libyan intervention, came out on the other side, arguing that such interventions cause more casualties and supplant the rebels’ message with imperialist policy. This inconsistency with their previous statement seemed to go unnoticed by the other participants.

A major theme that the moderators emphasized during the debate was how the United States should respond to Middle Eastern countries who advocate for cultural, religious, and political rights that would be unpalatable to Americans.  The Socialists, Democrats, and Libertarians advocated for non-intervention and to continue engaging with these countries unless a gross human rights violation is present. Current, however, criticized Obama for being inconsistent in the regimes he chose to support and condemn. This led to an interesting response by the Democrats, who argued that, while the United States would love to see its form of democracy in other parts of the world, it does not have the luxury of working with only democratic nations and should act in its self-interest.

The audience Q&A mainly followed up on previous statements made by participants during the debate. Particularly, an accidental statement by the Republicans categorizing all extremism as Islamism became a point of contention. The topic of Iran was noticeably absent during the debate and came up during the Q&A, drawing a back and forth between Current and the Socialists over the legitimacy of Israel and the US opposing Iran’s right to a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, the debate covered a vast range of issues pertaining to the Middle East. While the debate overall often digressed from the main purpose of the forum, discussing Obama’s policies, it was successful in facilitating a substantive conversation. An event bringing together so many different political perspectives is a remarkable feat for which the Turath board should be praised.

Now, the instinctive opposition to imperialism in all forms and colors is unsurprising and understandable; after the legacy of colonialism throughout the world, I doubt that many people truly sympathetic to the populations of the Arab world would endorse imperialism as “good.” And it certainly would be foolish, as I wrote before, not to expect outside powers to attempt to press for their own interests. But to place the thuggish regimes of Assad, Qaddafi, and Mubarak next to international concerns about regime violence and the bloodshed that is verifiably happening in Syria, as Massad does, forces us to into making a choice that is not the third way. It is equivocacy, and it abets fascism.

What is so worrying about thinkers like Massad and Escobar, as well as those that agree with them, is that the wise caution and questioning displayed towards motives and actions of Western countries immediately turns into distrust, reading of all actions by non-Arab actors and reflexive defense of regimes that are equally despicable compared to imperialists. Buying into the nonsense that these demonstrations and revolutions are external creations supports the regimes’ slaughter of their own people under the banner of “restoring order” and “stability;” more than that, it is a huge insult to the Syrian (and other revolutionary) people, who have given many lives and much struggle for the sake of overturning a minority regime that reserves the overwhelming positions of power and government for its own sect, allocates enormous wealth to the president’s family,  tortures dissidents, and besieges restive cities. More than this, it represents a claim on what the limits of the “Arab” or “Syrian” or other national identity may include; this claim categorically and short-sightedly excludes any alignment or agreement with Western interests, and though not explicitly, seems to even forbid speech, demonstration, and revolution as a legitimate expression of dissent.

And this leads to the questions that one must ask: Why do so many seem inclined to defend these criminal regimes? Why does reflexive anti-imperialism seem to translate so often into the support of dictatorships, directly or otherwise? What makes a regime legitimate, insofar as legitimacy is reflexively defined as being seen as legitimate?

With each passing day more die in Homs, Hama, Deraa, and Daraya; yet the question is not if the regime will crumble and pass, but when, under how many deaths, and to what successor. If democracy or anything resembling it is to take hold, the people of Syria – along with the intellectuals, thinkers, and policymakers in the rest of the world – must not fall prey to reflexive reactionary-ism, and instead follow their course with dignity and respect.

Though there has been ample coverage of the ban in the European media, much of it has been of a disappointing quality, focusing more on the winsome notion of religious liberty or the academic anxiety of a clash of civilizations rather than the logistics of the French quagmire. When pundits and social commentators do address the situation, more often than not it is to admonish the law as draconian and overbearing, if not racist and Islamophobic.

It is dispiriting to see the Fifth Republic attacked for using common sense legislation to manage its sizable Muslim population and the corresponding task of fostering social cohesion. Despite the attempts of many detractors to shame the French into disaffirming the ban, it remains widely popular with the French people, and so it should. The decision to ban the burqa was an intrepid one, not lightly made, and the government ought to be lauded, rather than rebuked, for its commitment to basic human rights and its dedication to safeguarding the French identity.

That the law is an infringement on religious liberty is one of the main gripes of its critics. Though it feels natural and rewarding to take up the side of religious freedom, the arguments are reflexive and ultimately half-baked. In any society in which multiple faiths hope to coincide, certain religious practices must be proscribed. Moreover, France is a country with a longstanding secular tradition that has routinely circumscribed religious activity. For almost a decade, it has been illegal to wear a kippah or large pendant of any faith in French schools. These objects have been deemed ostentatious religious garb, and therefore, a genuine impediment to an education.

Other things are banned, too. It is also illegal to have multiple spouses in France, a law particularly vexing to the recent influx of Malian immigrants that have entered France with a longstanding tradition of polygamy. Is prohibiting polygamy an infringement on religious liberty? Well, perhaps it is, but that’s largely irrelevant, considering it is not the purpose of government to mold itself to the crude shape of each and every religion within its border. The government should protect religious freedom, which by no means entails condoning every ceremony or practice justified by a holy book, especially those that are anathema to the national identity. It is also worth noting that the burqa is by no means mandated in Islam and can scarcely be called a religious tradition, appearing not once in Quran. Indeed, even in the autocratic theocracy of Iran, women are required only to cover their hair, not their faces. It seems that France is being asked to relinquish its deeply entrenched tradition of secularism to accommodate a radical practice of an extreme faction lying at the fringe of one religion.

Many critics of the ban ask if a government should have the authority to dictate what its citizens may and may not don, insinuating that the answer is no. This question arises often and can lead to many new topics of discussion, but don’t be fooled; it is a textbook red herring. This law has nothing to do with regulating clothing. Rather, it is meant to explicitly deny people the right to cover their faces while in public, be it with a Halloween mask, a helmet, or a burqa.

Human society functions based on facial interactions. People recognize each other, communicate with one another, and express mirth and sorrow all through the contortion of their faces. The social contract mandates that people can see one another, and all social cohesion is derived from this basic, fundamental assumption. The proof is in the language. Consider phrases like, “It was great seeing you” or “I’ll see you later.” Or think about childhood platitudes like, “You have to face your fears.” Or constitutional rights and “the right to face your accuser.”

Universally, face-to-face interaction is the essence of human solidarity and the most basic indication of camaraderie between people. Consider the military salute, a simulation of medieval knights raising the visors of their helmets to reveal their faces as an act of dignity and respect. As children, we are instructed not to wear hats at the dinner table in the name of manners, and in old westerns, we see cowboys tipping their hats to women passing by, an act that is intended to reveal the face of the wearer as a gesture of amity and goodwill.

A popular idiom states that you cannot trust someone who is hiding in a closet. The logic at work here is that trust cannot be forged without visual recognition, without identifying the person with whom you are interacting. The burqa is averse to the formation of trust between people, as it is to the formation of anything else. It is a partition between the wearer and the world, and by concealing her face, it obliterates her identity. Some have stated that wearing the burqa is a personal choice, and is done in the interest of modesty (though can you imagine anything less modest?). But when a person decides to permanently conceal their face, they preemptively end any social interaction not fraught with fear and suspicion, and in doing so, they menace the bonds that bind society.

The immortal Woody Allen once remarked that you can “never trust a naked bus driver,” a quip that is applicable in more than one way. First, it expresses with admirable brevity the notion that if something looks absurd, it probably is absurd, and that you cannot put your faith in something that is patently ridiculous. The debate over banning the burqa is too often couched in politically correct terms, and too rarely does anyone acknowledge the fact that the burqa is a portable penitentiary meant to relegate a woman’s sphere of activity to her home while making her a pariah and a prisoner on the streets.

If we cannot be honest with ourselves, and we insist on calling the burqa a religious tool that insures modesty rather than a sartorial dungeon, then we cannot expect to have an instructive discussion on the matter. The pun offers another service, though, by broaching the topic of nudity. Consider the fact that public nudity has long been prohibited in France, and for all the same reasons as the burqa. Nudity is offensive to unwilling spectators; it is an impediment to social interaction and a threat to social cohesion, and for those reasons, it is deemed unacceptable. The burqa is the moral equivalent of nudity, and the idea of shrouding a person from head to toe in black garb, leaving only their eyes visible, is as antithetical to human society as nudity. So the next time you hear someone defending the burqa or criticizing France for its draconian law, suggest that you continue the conversation naked, and see if you make any progress that way.

All trash collection in Kenya is private, meaning that residents will pay to have companies haul trash out of Nairobi to the dump, situated in the suburb of Dandora. While dumps such as Dandora do not have advanced waste management technologies to address serious health and environmental hazards, they have established a system of sorting garbage that is quite complex and organized.

The entirety of the dump is comprised of small territories that different teams manage. Once a trash bag reaches its designated area, it will be dumped and then picked through. A plastic bottle, for instance, will first be put in a general plastics pile and will eventually be separated again with other plastics, either by size or by color. When I first arrived, I remember hearing John, the leader of the group, saying, “This is where our group works. See, there is the glass, there is the plastic, there is the white paper, there is the brown paper.” Once the trash has been separated, it will be packaged and sent across the dump to a dock.

But I do want to warn you: The dump has become a criminal haven. The rolling piles of garbage are a perfect hideout, particularly since the area has no security, and certainly no police would dare patrol any of the nationally ignored slum areas. With Kenya’s recent war on Al-Shabaab in Somalia, many Somalis have been illegally flooding across Kenyan borders, many making their way to the big city. But like so many that arrive in Nairobi with big city dreams of finding work and starting a life with a family and home, but instead finding few opportunities, the Somali refugees have taken to the slums near Dandora, the poorest in Nairobi. The Somalis have it particularly rough right now; because of the war, many Kenyans have been discriminating against anyone that looks of Somali descent, and, in some cases, discrimination has gone as far as killing.

Overall, there is order to the landfill at Dandora. I saw families working very hard. Some were even covering their sorted piles with cardboard to protect them from the unseasonable heavy rains we had been having. There were even two guys playing checkers right on the top of a giant trash mountain!

To some, the dump has been their only source of employment. John had been working at Dandora since he was 6. He did not go to school, and he spoke mostly Sheng, a Kiswahili-English pidgin language that originated 40 years ago in a nearby slum neighborhood. I heard him talking to some mzungu journalists one day as he showed them around the landfill, “There aren’t a lot of jobs now, but there will always be work here. And here, we are all like brothers. Sometimes when another group doesn’t make as much, we help them. And, you know, they do the same for us. You can’t do this work alone,” he said. “We take shifts on different days because you can’t be working all the time when you are also taking care of family.”

The reporters asked him about working among such dangerous and filthy conditions, to which he humbly replied, “You know this is dangerous work. There are many bad things here, but someone has to do it, and when you have a family, you have to put yourself in danger to provide for them sometimes.” After hearing John say all this, I realized that much of life and work in Kenya is dangerous, and picking trash was really no different. While both may at first seem unbearable, the initial hardships later serve make the dump’s and Kenya’s humanity even more apparent.

Columbia Political Review is unveiling its new running feature – Political Minutes – where we provide coverage of political events happening across campus and New York City. If you know of an event or want coverage, let us know!  

On February 7, the Columbia Political Union hosted a debate between the Columbia Democrats and the College Republicans on the resolution that colleges and universities should practice race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions. Bruno Baretta, CC ’15 and Austin Heyroth, CC‘15 represented the Democrats, while Will Prasifka, CC‘12 and Taylor Thompson, CC ’14 represented the Republicans. Referring to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his opening statement, Baretta identified the rhetoric of equality that the United States champions and that affirmative action attempts to actualize. Baretta noted that only 41 percent of black men graduate from high school in the United States, indicating a marked lack of equality in opportunity. Baretta made clear that affirmative action is a step in the direction of closing the wealth gap created between the privileged and minority populations over hundreds of years of history.

Prasifka, in turn, acknowledged in his opening statement for the Republicans that “we all agree there are racial problems,” but asserted that affirmative action is not the proper response to these problems. He identified three arguments often used in defense of affirmative action: diversity, historical wrongs, and integration. He claimed that these justifications are all inherently flawed because they assume certain personal characteristics based on race and ultimately neglect the individual identity.

These opening statements solidified the vocabulary to be used by each side in the ensuing debate. The first question of the debate was whether race-based affirmative action tends to benefit the privileged and whether it is a problem. Answering for the Democrats, Heyroth argued that there is a difference between socioeconomic discrimination and race discrimination and that the best solution is to apply affirmative action to both. Prasifka commented that “what [affirmative action] does is take away your individuality.”

Further into the debate, a recurring issue was the extent to which affirmative action generalizes the experience of a particular demographic and whether a race-based generalization is justified Furthermore, Thompson argued that affirmative action policies “breed complacency among rich white people who think they’ve solved the problem.” The Republicans asserted throughout the debate that affirmative action policies provide an excuse for politicians to cease further engagement with the race problem in America.

On the Democrats’ side, Heyroth noted that “anti-discrimination laws empirically reduce racism” because greater exposure to people of minority groups leads to a better understanding of their individual characters and a decrease in bigotry. He and Baretta argued that, as all debaters agreed, minorities were no less deserving of the education or job attained through affirmative action, but that the policy allows students, employers, and colleagues to better understand the deserving qualities of those who traditionally experience discrimination.

After the debate, President of the Democrats, Janine Balekdjian, CC’13 praised the performance by Baretta and Austin and said,

I thought that the Dems were very insightful, and they did a good job of pointing out the structural issues that make affirmative action important. They addressed not just the problems on the surface, but also the deeper issues.

Thompson, Deputy Director of Public Relations for CUCR, emphasized the similarities between the arguments of the Democrats and the Republicans, noting,

95 percent of what was said in this debate was agreed upon. What we disagreed on is that on a conceptual level, you can’t defeat racism by engaging in the idea of race.

Reflecting on the atmosphere of the debate, Emily Tamkin, CC ‘12, General Manager of CPU, commented,

I was incredibly pleased not only with the content of the debate, but also with the level of the debate. I thought both sides put forth compelling arguments and had clearly done their homework. This debate raised the level of discourse, and I thought that the audience followed suit and contributed similarly.