“I want to spread this message around the world- that it is by your own merit, not the color of your skin that someone should judge you by” noted Judge Arthur Burnett. Youth In Politics, a youth advocacy and education organization, interviewed the Honorable Judge Arthur Burnett to learn about his life and his impact, not just on the legal system of D.C., but of America as a whole. Youth In Politics partnered with Global Youth Justice to learn about one of their most notable founding members and gain insight into Judge Burnett's life and his impact on Global Youth Justice, and his calls for equality and inclusion were inspiring
Studying at Howard University in 1952, Judge Burnett defied the social norms of the time and decided to pursue higher education. He notes his drive to excel and the importance good grades had on his career. Judge Burnett’s academic record allowed him to gain national recognition from leaders such as Thurgood Marshall. In October of 1954 he become the lead plaintiff in Brown v. Board of Education pushing Virginia to comply with the end of segregation in schools. Although there were serious safety concerns, Judge Burnett never let the fear stop him from making an impact on the U.S. He studied law at New York University, where NYU paid him full-time to be a faculty assistant. He was one of two African Americans in his graduating class, but never let that stop him from achieving high-level academic achievement. He went on to work for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and was the fourth black lawyer to be hired in 1955. Burnett eventually was drafted to the military and applied to the army commission serving a two-year tour in California as a Chief Specialist Administrative Clerk. He eventually resigned from the army when he was appointed to the U.S. Magistrate. He served with Bobby Kennedy as his special assistant and monitored the Martin Luther King Situation from 1961-1965, being an undercover agent during MLKs I Have A Dream Speech. After the JFK assassination, he became an assistant US Attorney. In 1969 he was the first African American to be appointed US Magistrate. The extent of Judge Burnett’s fighting spirit, strive of academic achievement, and willingness to educate and inspire our younger generations in undeniable. However, his accomplishments lie far beyond a title. The real-world impact he has had on the community continues to positively impact newer generations. Judge Burnett met Scott Peterson at the US Department of Justice Grants for Youth, and help found Global Youth Justice, an organization that helps juveniles with non-violent offenses receive shorter sentences. Judge Burnett was appointed Vice President for the organization and has been working with the organization since the 1990s where he used his legal knowledge to be an advisor which helped start the organization. Global Youth Justice has expanded rapidly, creating a teen-led court system where teenagers interested in the legal system can be a part of the trial, not just educating themselves on how the legal process works, but also helping a fellow juvenile receive a more reflective sentence. The program has over 2,000 youth volunteers and is present in 40 tribes and 11 countries globally. Global Youth Justice is the embodiment both of Judge Burnett’s commitment to helping the next generation of lawyers and leaders, but also showcases his immense heart and dedication toward excellence in everything he does. Not only his Judge Burnett a crucial founding member of Global Youth Justice, but is also a piece of history that reflects the success one can have with dedication and a drive to define your own future.
0 Comments
By: Crystal Fu
Racial equality has emerged as one of the most pressing issues in American society with the surging civil rights movement in the late twentieth century. To achieve diversity, universities and other institutions began to implement systems of affirmative action (using racial preferences when admitting students or staff), which is criticized in Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor. Despite the importance of student diversity, universities should reduce the use of racial preferences in admissions because they foster harmful racial stereotypes and impede the academic and professional success of minority students. To begin, as Sander and Taylor argue in Mismatch, students who are admitted using racial preferences are at risk of inadvertently reinforcing false stereotypes and developing low self-esteem as a result. For instance, the performance gap between students admitted through affirmative action and other students fuels negative racial stereotypes, and “hearing or being reminded of a negative stereotype of a group one belongs to hurts short-term performance” (Sander and Taylor 104). When a minority student notices that many classmates admitted using affirmative action – who also happen to be minorities – are struggling, it would be easy for him or her to incorrectly conclude that minorities are less smart or less capable. This can create a vicious cycle in which the performance of those students is further impeded, resulting in an even greater performance gap. On the contrary, according to a study conducted by researchers from Syracuse University and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (ironically opposing affirmative action bans), banning affirmative action has correlated with minorities being “[pushed] from selective to nonselective colleges” (Lutz et al.) compared to before the ban. One can infer that, without being mismatched by racial preferences, minorities were more likely to apply to colleges aligned with their academic strengths, leading to a decrease in minority applications at prestigious colleges. This shift can allow minority students to thrive in their college environments instead of struggling to keep up with their peers. Thus, students floundering at institutions while feeling out of their depths instead of matriculating at schools suited to their needs would suffer needless emotional harm. Moreover, the futures of these “mismatched” students would also be catastrophically impacted by racial preferences. For example, a law school professor laments in Mismatch that “ ‘[the faculty will] admit black and Hispanic students with low entering credentials, but... [t]hey don’t take the time to help them master the skills necessary to pass the bar’ ” (qtd. in Sander and Taylor 88). Unfortunately, what these universities do is akin to admitting children into an amusement park for free and yet not buying them any tickets to rides. Just as a park is nothing without its attractions, for students, entrance into a school is never the end goal, but merely a gateway to what really matters: a quality education. When universities do not understand this, students suffer; for instance, the dean of George Mason University Law School reports that “ ‘students with LSAT scores below 150 are more than six times as likely to experience academic difficulty... more than thirteen times as likely to be dismissed for academic cause, and almost twice as likely to fail the bar exam on their first attempt’ ” (qtd. in Sander and Taylor 226-227). This is unacceptable and must be addressed by universities implementing racial preferences. Although many schools do understand the negative effects of racial preferences, they are forced to continue using them by organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA) that threaten their accreditation if they do not comply.The sooner administrators acknowledge the damage caused by these policies, the sooner they can find better solutions that promote racial diversity. However, school administrators refuse to hear any criticism of affirmative action out of fear of becoming embroiled in ugly racial politics. For example, as elucidated by Sander and Taylor, institutions that “lack racial legitimacy can become targets of civil rights lawsuits or unfavorable media coverage" (Sander and Taylor 189), resulting in high financial and reputational costs. This fear of scandal and public backlash explains why, despite overwhelming evidence, universities do not address the harmful effects of racial preferences even when the data is in plain sight. Avoiding the subject only exacerbates the problem and hinders any attempt to find a solution. In contrast, Dr. Meera E. Deo proposes in a supporting article that a better approach would be to implement an “equity-focused affirmative action model that targets the full inclusion of our most vulnerable students” (Deo) that considers factors other than race alone. Surface-level diversity in schools is not enough to help minorities and other disadvantaged groups gain access to equal education. Instead, schools should consider their socioeconomic status and the changing situations in America among racial groups. If universities make more efforts to support students in this way, it would be much more impactful than mechanically applying bonuses to students’ applications. In hindsight, although racial preferences were born out of misguided good intentions, their harmful impacts on minority students have been thoroughly detailed in books such as Mismatch. Benevolent intentions do not excuse the systematic damage they have caused; they must be replaced by better programs that transcend stereotypes and give minority students the opportunity to thrive. When school administrators become willing to embrace this change, they will usher in an era of true racial equality in education. Works Cited Deo, Meera E. "THE END OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION." North Carolina Law Review, vol. 100, no. 1, Dec. 2021, pp. 237+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A690996042/AONE?u=j079907013&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=de69235a. Accessed 14 Feb. 2023. Lutz, Amy, et al. "State Bans on Affirmative Action and Talent Loss Among Blacks and Latinos in the United States." Ethnic Studies Review, vol. 43, no. 2, summer 2020, pp. 58+. Gale Academic OneFile, By: The Global Studies Academy's Global Issues Summit
RICHMOND, Texas - Fort Bend ISD’s Global Studies Academy will host its 11th annual Global Issues Summit (GIS) on April 15th, 2023. Proudly run by a collective of school officials and students, the summit aims to spread awareness about a range of global concerns to members of the community, as well as to inform them about measures being taken to “ turn awareness into action." This year, the Summit seeks to address the issues of access and availability, ranging from basic necessities, such as food and water, to more complex assets, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It will explore the ways in which an interconnected global network can foster a transformative means for development in isolated or developing areas, hence the theme of “Global Connection: The Path to Prosperity.” Attendees will choose breakout rooms that pique their interest, each of which will address a Sustainable Development Goal - goals set by the United Nations in 2015 in order to solve some of the world’s most prevalent issues by the year 2030. The event’s speakers, ranging from service directors to organization chairs, will give a series of inspiring presentations regarding efforts that capture the spirit of these Sustainable Development Goals. With the knowledge gained from the summit, community members will be better equipped to address pressing issues from a more well-informed and global perspective. The Global Issues Summit is free and required to attend upon registration. Registration is open from February 27th to April 7th, 2023. To register and learn more, please visit www.globalissuessummit.org. By: Alexandra Hamilton
The U.S. has historically established itself as a global diplomatic power seeking to forge connections from people around the world. From the creation of the League of Nations, to the Dayton Accord, to the Marshall Plan, America’s commitment to global security and development is undeniable. That being said, Ronan Farrow in War on Peace the End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence showcases the diminishing diplomatic and global power of the U.S., creating a truthful and worrisome argument. Even though military action has been emphasized since 9/11 to expand American control in foreign regions, prioritizing peacekeeping is absolutely critical to improving relationships with other countries in order to both establish and expand U.S. influence globally. To start, diplomacy and civilian dialogue are absolutely necessary to improve relationships in critical regions. For example, when discussing the American approach towards Turkey, U.S. military generals sought to exert greater influence over violent regions in the Middle East, and as a result, the Pentagon took over the State Department’s role (Farrow 161). The future of the State Department is dire, and there is worry about the disorganization of the government and how that may impact the prospect of building new relationships with other countries. The State Department needed to be present, but an overly dominating military strategy was implemented which has hurt America’s prospect of improving the relationship, and a similar problem has occurred in Afghanistan. To demonstrate this, U.S. intervention in Afghanistan seeking to find Osama Bin Laden proves how “America’s limited options in the region after 9/11, and the resulting decision to arm … warlords, were a direct result of a vacuum of diplomacy” (Farrow 173). Bringing to light America’s backing of violent warlords exemplifies how the U.S. lacked options to combat terrorism in the Middle East due to the rejection of diplomacy. People have questioned why America has not done something to improve diplomacy, especially when there is a need to establish better country relationships in a region where ISIS and other terrorist groups run rampant; however, there are instances of successful diplomacy which have improved relationships such as the use of public diplomacy in East Asia. To exemplify, a supporting article notes that China has focused on expanding public diplomacy through “the rise of media and the abundance of digital technologies … [which] have unleashed a flood of cultural content, making public diplomacy more dialogical, collaborative, and inclusive” (Otmazgin). The use of technology has led to the integration of other cultures into mainstream media, providing influence and cultural leverage toward those countries in global diplomacy and improving discourse with other powerful countries, such as Japan and Korea. Diplomacy has been used as a means to create both cultural awareness and influence, and America should be using these new tools to improve its relationships with East Asian nations. Only once negotiations and understanding of other countries are valued can the U.S. improve fraught but critical relationships to continue democratic ideals abroad. Furthermore, diplomacy serves the purpose of establishing new relationships with the prospect of helping those in need. To illustrate, American intervention and statesmanship in Colombia at the end of the 20th century allowed for “a holistic development plan surrounding arms and human rights waivers” (Farrow 252). Troops and humanitarian aid programs were allowed to enter the country which benefited both the government leaders and the average citizens of Colombia. Discourse continues between the two countries and Colombia remains one of the most important U.S. relationships in South America, demonstrating how important and successful diplomatic relationships can be which is similar to the China – Korea relationship. For instance, China implemented the use of “long-term … initiatives [which] should not be underestimated as they not only provide more tools for the State to use or change the nature of diplomacy, but also have an impact on the nature of the State and its relations with society in a given country” (Otmazgin). Public diplomacy has expanded to encompass educational initiatives which have large social and political benefits for both the governments who host them and the countries who receive them. Exemplifying a symbiotic relationship fueled by diplomacy where the government of a country is able to indirectly spread its influence showcases that peacefully providing needed programs to other countries in the region is equally as important as military intervention. Only through conversations, can an improved and more comprehensive relationship that benefits both people and the leaders of a country be established. Additionally, expanding American influence in important countries through civilian dialogue and diplomatic discourse is an unpopular yet beneficial idea. For example, due to the violent nature of the war on terrorism in Pakistan “the military wanted to stay in charge, and going against the military would make [President Obama] look weak” (Farrow 67). The president didn’t push for a more diplomatic approach to American policy due to the belief that doing so would ruin America’s reputation, but this viewpoint hinders the opportunity for long-term global influence. Diplomacy is losing importance by systematically favoring militarization in the U.S. government which doesn’t allow for the U.S. to understand and help its allies, and as a result, other countries have sought to support what the American government lacks. To illustrate, China’s diplomacy is growing as fast as its economy and if this trend continues, the U.S. will continue to lose influence and power globally (Farrow 293). Diplomacy has become a way to retain global economic and political strength, and America has neglected to see this value as it continues to back military influence. As America’s once well-known diplomatic approaches have declined, China’s have increased, putting the U.S. at a severe disadvantage for global strategy. Foreign policy allows for the forging of long-lasting relationships which leads to stability between governments that share similar democratic goals in a way that militarization cannot. Many believe that the military is a more concrete and simpler way to expand American influence abroad. To illustrate, an article in support of militarization indicates that some military generals follow the idea that “pre-emptive strikes may be of some utility… one unforgettable case [was] the Wehrmacht’s pre-emptive strike into the Soviet Union in 1941, a strike that was enormously successful” (Murray). Although there are examples where military intervention has been successful, it is important to consider the changing political landscape of our world. As tensions continue to rise globally, a tactical approach is extremely dangerous towards disrupting the global balance of power since it could result in unnecessary violence that could have been prevented through diplomacy. Others believe that military intervention is a way to remove possible threats that could be dangerous towards America. For example, President Bush and other high-level officials believed the invasion of Iraq “[had the intent] of removing Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction as well as eliminating the possibility that he might eventually possess nuclear weapons” (Murray). Military intervention was able to create some peace of mind, but just that alone was not enough to create sustainable solutions for the complicated and difficult relationship. It is not realistic nor safe to incite violence as a preventative measure whenever there is simply a lack of understanding of the people, but rather a greater understanding of a conflict is needed to create long-term change which is not supported by America today. To demonstrate, U.S. governmental officials had started a systematic problem where “American leadership no longer valued diplomats, which led to cuts that made diplomats less valuable” (Farrow 275). Without American government backing of State Department officials, preemptive strikes and military tactics will become the forefront of international policy, creating a violent and unstable world. No diplomatic counterpart means the Department of Defense has the opportunity to increase tensions globally and create a more unsafe world. It is imperative that one understand that diplomacy has historically been effective and should continue to be used. The world has become an increasingly violent and divided place. From the wars in the Middle East, to Western Europe’s tension with Russia and China, it is undeniable that misunderstanding other cultures could lead to disastrous consequences. Dialogue allows for a greater understanding of others and ensures peace for all countries in the world which enables both sustainable and long-term change. Diplomacy is absolutely critical for the establishment, expansion, and improvement of U.S. influence and must be prioritized for the safety of the world and generations to come. Works Cited Farrow, Ronan. War On Peace the End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2018. Murray, Williamson. "No Shortage of Quagmires: Seizing the military initiative can lead to success, as history confirms, but only if the party that seizes the initiative is fully prepared to exploit it. Few are." Hoover Digest, no. 1, winter 2018, pp. 63+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A526575462/AONE?u=j079907013&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=b420a931. Accessed 3 Feb. 2023. Otmazgin, Nissim. "An 'East Asian' Public Diplomacy? Lessons from Japan, South Korea, and China." Asian Perspective, vol. 45, no. 3, summer 2021, pp. 621+. Gale In Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A672222155/GIC?u=j079907013&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=63124618. Accessed 23 Jan. 2023. By: Alexandra Hamilton
By: Neville Kanga
In 2010 the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, also known as FIFA, named the small, Middle Eastern country of Qatar as the host for the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This would be the first time in history that a nation from the Middle East would be hosting the tournament plus the first time that Qatari National Team plays (since it is hosting the tournament, Qatar gets automatic admission). Millions of dollars were spent on creating new stadiums and tourist accommodations, and so far, the World Cup has been running smoothly. However, allegations of migrant worker abuse, corruption, and human rights violations have all created a worldwide controversy over Qatar. It is virtually impossible for a nation of approximately 330,000 citizens to prepare for the world biggest sports competition alone which is exactly why Qatar heavily relied on migrant labor. Millions of people from South Asian countries like India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka immigrated to Qatar with the hopes of getting jobs and money. However, when they arrived, they were immediately placed under the cruel kafala system: a labor system in which workers were sponsored to migrate but were then legally bound to labor contracts and their employer. Moreover, migrants were subject to harsh labor and living conditions and barely received basic necessities from Qatari officials. According to an interview of Anish Adhikari by PBS, “‘Sometimes, the company gave us rotten food. The fish would smell disgusting…Wedidn’t get the water we needed,” and this only scratches the surface of the downright abuse that laborers received on a daily basis. Furthermore, more than 6,700 migrant workers perished while working in Qatar however only a small fraction of the victims’ families have received compensation and the cause of death. However, “Qatar says that only three people have died as a direct result of work on World Cup construction sites, and acknowledge the deaths of 37 workers that were ‘non-work-related’” which only highlights the secrecy of the host nation (Sullivan). Corruption of hosting rights was also a major aspect of the controversy of this year’s World Cup. According to Tim McPhillips of PBS, “In 2010, in an unusual move, FIFA awarded the rights for two tournaments at the same time – the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The winning host countries were Russia and Qatar, respectively. ‘There was pretty wide expectation that the United States would win that tournament,’ said Sam Stejskal, who covers soccer for The Athletic. ‘And as we’ve learned in subsequent investigations, it wasn’t quite on the up and up.’” Officials from around the world accused Russia and Qatar of bribery, convincing FIFA officials to grant their respective nation the privilege of hosting. They claim that “‘[Russia and Qatar’s] participation in a 24-year scheme [enabled them] to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer,’” and even FIFA acknowledged the Qataris’ bid was not completely clear of suspicion (McPhillips). Although no definite motive or proof has been uncovered, it is safe to say that the decision of the 2022 host nation was not as fair as it should have been. Lastly, Qatar’s controversy extends to its human right violations for both visitors and footballers as well. Due to its anti-homosexuality laws, players were not allowed to have any sort of rainbow design, which is a symbol of LGBT pride on their jerseys, captain armbands, or boots. Although many people around the world were against this ruling, FIFA threatened players with yellow cards if they weren’t obedient, causing this movement to die down. FIFA and Qatari officials argued that visitors and players should respect Qatar’s culture however in the past, there have been numerous allegations against Qatar’s mistreatment of LGBTQ people. This is an alarming fact that makes many people question why Qatar is allowed to host the World Cup when doesn’t necessarily welcome all people. The sudden ban on alcohol also raised doubt in Qatar’s ability to host the tournament as well as the situation of women’s rights in the country. Although corruption, migrant labor exploitation, and abuses of civil freedoms are clearly evident in Qatar’s World Cup, it is important to peacefully and appropriate protest in order to successfully advocate for change and enjoy the World Cup. Sources: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137204271/qatar-world-cup-controversies https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-world-cup-is-officially-underway-in-qatar-heres-why-its-so- controversial https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/world-cup-2022-why-is-qatar-controversial-location-fifa- tournament-2022-11-15/ By: Julia Carolina Caravalho
Graciously Given Permission To Publish from Youth For Democracy Globalization is characterized by the expansion of international flows and the contraction of time and space. As a result, the boundaries of states are weakened and the unevenness of development between countries and regions are accentuated. This consequently exacerbates the diaspora of people from one place to another, due to different reasons, such as: fleeing war, famine, religious persecution or in search of job opportunities and a better life. Currently, there are more than 280 million migrants in the world, the highest number in human history. [1] Manifestations of xenophobia occur in the process of accommodating peoples of different cultures, religions and language. The International Organization for Migration (IMO) describes them as “attitudes, prejudices and behaviour that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity”. [2] Often, immigrants and their children are not accepted as true citizens, despite citizenship or place of birth. This hostility towards foreigners comes from a myriad of factors, such as economic and cultural factors. This essay seeks to shed light on the causes of xenophobia. Migration has been making headlines across the globe, notably in the United States and in Europe, as indicated by recent political events such as: Brexit, Donald Trump's election, and the rise of populism in Europe. That is not to suggest that xenophobia is an exclusive Western phenomenon; since it is increasingly prominent in developing countries as well. However, given that the amount of empirical information addressing the latter is significantly inferior, the essay concentrates on developed countries. One of the very first concerns prompted by the arrival of immigrants is the economic well-being of the host-country**.** In recent decades, economic growth has slumped. Over the last twenty years, the French economy grew on average 1.5% compared with the annual growth of 5% in the postwar era. [3] In the US, in the first two decades following the end of World War II, the economy grew about 4% per year, contrasting with the only 2% growth over the last two decades. [4] At the same time, the rising gap between the rich and the poor sharpened. [5] These factors combined led to the stagnation of living standards, and consequently, resentment and frustration. In this setting, migrants are usually seen as an economic burden, abusers of welfare and job-stealers. While it is true that migrants can pressure schools, healthcare systems and housing markets, the economic impact of immigration depends on several factors such as workers' and migrants’ skills, the labor market, the host-country’s economic cycle, etc. At the heart of the fear of unemployment is the lump of labor fallacy i.e. the flawed assumption that there is a fixed number of jobs in an economy. In some cases, migrants have skills that complement those of the natives, in others, migration increases the pool of workers in certain sectors, especially in low skilled occupations, increasing competition and therefore reducing wages in the short run. Nevertheless, it can create new jobs, since migrants expand consumption for goods and services, driving wages up. In developed countries, they can also boost the working-age population and take low skilled jobs, unwanted by the native population. The Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) argued that EU immigration did not have significantly negative effects on average employment, wages, or inequality, yet the economical concerns were a driving force for the result of the Brexit referendum.[6] In 2016, Donald Trump outperformed Hillary Clinton in counties where wages were lower and jobs were at risk due to automation and globalization. [7] In research for his book, Yascha Mounk could evidence this anxiety in his interviews- “”Those politicians care more about foreigners than they do about us,” “this country is going down the drain”. [8] On top of that, when the host countries have a history of ethnic homogeneity and have an ethnic conception of the nation rather than a civic, which is the case in Europe, they are fertile ground for xenophobic rhetoric. This is especially true when we consider that the social changes brought about globalization have led to a greater attachment to identity. Furthermore, with immigration rates going up, natives are losing their sense of self, they fear a future in which the majority group will eventually become the minority. In Europe, much is said about the Islamisation of the West. In fact, what is seen throughout the world is an overestimation of the number of migrants. Americans believe that 17 percent of the population is Muslim, while it is actually 1 percent. The French think it is 31 percent, the right figure is 8 percent. [9] One might wonder about the United States, since it was composed by immigrants from the outset and founded upon the idea that all humans are equal, and still, in the last years, the public rhetoric is marked by xenophobia. First, the group of immigrants that held power were all white and Christians, and nowadays, migrants come from all over the world. Added to this is the fact that the nation’s immigrant population is the highest in history. More than 44.9 million immigrants were living in the United States in 2019, which corresponds to 13.7 percent of the overall population. [10] The US Census Bureau predicts that non-hispanic whites who, in 2005, accounted for 67% of the population will become less than half of the US population by 2055, namely 47% .[11] Those numbers help to explain the resurgence of nationalism and populists right-wing parties in recent years. In “Clamour of Nationalism”, Sivamohan Valluvan defines it as “the set of framings by which primary culpability for significant socio-political problems, whether real or imagined, is attributed to various ‘alien’ ethno-racial communities.”[12] That is, there is a clear distinction between citizens and immigrants, insiders and outsiders, belonging and non-belonging, us and them. A survey showed 58 percent of Europeans from 10 different countries (namely Greece, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Austria, Luxemburg, Denmark, Italy and Finland) believed migration was linked with rising levels of crime, even though EU research proves this to be wrong. [13] [14] This view is promoted by the media and politicians, especially in the post truth era where everyone is free to spread lies, fake news and to promote hate speech. They do this by using stereotypes, dubious statistics, flawed assumptions, decontextualization and generalization. For instance, research showed that water metaphors such as flood, waves, pour, and stream were largely used in headlines, comparing immigrants to unwanted natural disasters. [15] To illustrate the increase in discrimination and violence directed against migrants, it is relevant to cite the perception of Islam by Europeans. Another survey showed Europeans believe Islam is incompatible with western values. [16] They share the perception that Islam is backwards, patriarchal, violent, non-pregressive, a threat to democracy, freedom and justice and western civilization as a whole. Atif Rashid, however, argues that Islam not only is compatible, but also endorses the values cited above, which shows how the western perception of Muslims is stained with stereotypes, especially due to terrorist attacks around the world. [17] It is interesting to note that populist politicians seem to perform particularly well in regions and countries with a low foreign-born population. That happens because regular contact with minority groups can ease discrimination. For example, Residents of former West Germany, who were three times more likely to come into contact with migrants at work or in their neighborhood, displayed much more favorable feelings towards them. [18] That is why policies such as excluding refugees and asylum-seekers from territories can actually heighten xenophobia. In conclusion, xenophobia is distinctly predominant in times of social and economic distress, when the native population longs for an often idealized past. They conclude that the arrival of migrants must have led to the end of prosperity and economic growth, and choose to blame them instead of admitting that the world has become increasingly complex. This view is efficiently promoted by opportunist politicians, who capture social anxieties to their advantages. They reinforce negative stereotypes by sharing fake news on social media, and consequently strengthen xenophobia. The rise of populism over the last years raised concerns about the protection of minority rights, jeopardizing the idea that liberal democracy is consolidated in the Western developed countries. Hence, the international community must acknowledge the relevance of xenophobia in political instability, particularly on account of the exponential increase in the number of migrants in consequence of climate change. By 2050, droughts, floods, sea-level rise and several other natural disasters will cause over one billion climate refugees to face displacement, as estimated by the International Organization for Migration.[19] It is important to remark that environmental and political degradation are connected, they reinforce each other. Thereby, in the years to come, xenophobia will compromise social cohesion in times when we will most need it. Footnotes: [1] McAuliffe, M. and Khadria, B., 2020. WORLD MIGRATION REPORT 2020. [online] Geneva: International Organization for Migration. Available at: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2022].[2]Iom.int. n.d. Key Migration Terms, Migration Glossary | IOM, UN Migration. [online] Available at: https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms [Accessed 2 January 2022]. [3] AMADEO, K., 2021. An Annual Review of the U.S. Economy Since 1929. [online] The Balance. Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 [Accessed 2 January 2022]. [4] Mounk, Y., 2019. The people vs. democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p.139. [5] Fadulu, L., 2022. Study Shows Income Gap Between Rich and Poor Keeps Growing, With Deadly Effects (Published 2019). [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/politics/gao-income-gap-rich-poor.html [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [6] Wadsworth, J., Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G. and Van Reenen, J., n.d. Brexit and the Impact of Immigration on the UK. [online] Available at: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [7] Kolko, J., 2022. Trump Was Stronger Where The Economy Is Weaker. [online] FiveThirtyEight. Available at: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/ [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [8] Mounk, Y., 2019. The people vs. democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p.146. [9] Ipsos.com. 2020. [online] Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/news_and_polls/2014-11/6657-ppt.pdf [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [10] Jeanne Batalova, a., 2022. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States. [online] migrationpolicy.org. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-2020 [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [11] S. PASSEL, J. and COHN, D., 2008. U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050. [online] Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/ [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [12] Valluvan, S., 2019. The clamour of nationalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p.14. [13]Crush, J. and Ramachandran, S., 2009. Xenophobia, International Migration and Human Development. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports Research Paper. [14] Cordis.europa.eu. n.d. CORDIS | European Commission. [online] Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/20635-eu-research-disproves-link-between-immigration-and-increased-crime [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [15] Crush, J. and Ramachandran, S., 2009. Xenophobia, International Migration and Human Development. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports Research Paper. [16] Tidey, A., 2019. Half of French, Germans think Islam clashes with their values: Survey. [online] euronews. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/04/nearly-half-of-french-and-germans-think-islam-clashes-with-their-values-survey [Accessed 2 January 2022]. [17] Rashid, A., 2016. The truth about whether Islamic values are compatible with Western values. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-truth-about-whether-islamic-values-are-compatible-with-western-values-a7141381.html [Accessed 3 January 2022]. [18] Crush, J. and Ramachandran, S., 2009. Xenophobia, International Migration and Human Development. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports Research Paper. [19] Refugees, U., 2022. Climate change and disaster displacement. [online] UNHCR. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/climate-change-and-disasters.html [Accessed 3 January 2022]. By Kashish Lalmohammed
If you've purchased items from Nike, Zara, or even Shein in the past, it’s likely you've helped promote child labor. A major problem in society arises as a result of the use of children as labor by these large U.S. Companies. From handling toxic materials to operating industrial equipment made for professionals, children are now being put into dangerous work situations. Human uprising against this issue is needed, not just for modern children, but also for those yet to join this dangerous workforce. As a result of their own needs such as clothing, shoes, and even sports equipment, society overlooks this human problem. In a basic American household, more than half of the products used are made using child labor. In many cases, children ask for assistance or even send signals through their clothing to alert consumers. A recent SHEIN issue had arisen in the media where tags on clothing had marks that said “Please help I need dental care”, or the words “Help me”. The consumers, however, viewed the tags as merely photoshop rather than an actual pressing issue. Thus, fast fashion stores that employ cheap labor are still able to sell their products at low prices. However, how can society resolve this longing issue? The first step a consumer should take is to know what products they are buying and what methods have been used to produce them. It is possible to find affordable alternatives to major brands clothing, shoes, and accessories on many websites. For consumers it’s as easy as typing into Google, “Brands that do not use child labor to produce their products”. If consumers refuse to purchase the brand's product, it will force the brand to rethink its production methods causing positive change. As a result of the relentless hours of work, child labor is not just dangerous, but it also stops children from completing their education, which is why 1 of 3 children in child labor are out of school. Typically, these children are from low-income countries, but there are many cases where middle-income countries are also involved. Low-income countries are home to many companies that promise accommodations and a well-paying job for children, enticing parents to send their children to work. This continuous cycle has been going on for centuries for families to increase their household income. A major way to prevent a rise in child labor statistics is to donate to organizations that help reduce these numbers, such as worldvision.org and globalmarch.org. It is possible for us all to make a lasting difference. Sources -https://humaneeducation.org/10-tips-for-helping-end-child-labor/ -https://humaneeducation.org/10-tips-for-helping-end-child-labor/ -https://www.worldvision.org/child-protection-news-stories/child-labor-facts By: Aditi Subramanyam Global warming and climate change are environmental issues first presented centuries ago. Yet, up until present day, people still debate on whether or not these issues deserve recognition. A matter this prevalent is inevitably influenced by political ideas. Our political system is primarily divided within two major political parties, known as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Studies show that members of the Democratic Party are more likely to view climate change as an immediate threat, while members of the Republican Party generally believe climate change to be exaggerated. However, many people claim these opinions simply because they have been passed down through many generations. Furthermore, as each group converses with its own members, group polarization comes into play, making it hard for the political parties to acknowledge each others’ view. This divide contributes to the long-standing disagreement preventing society from taking action as a whole. Our world today faces climate disasters almost every day. For example, the drought in Europe, rampant wildfires across the United States west coast, intensive flooding and tornadoes in the Midwest, as well as the ever-increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Despite the clear evidence, climate change still relies on politics to advance and take action. Furthermore, climate deniers refuse to acknowledge the evidence right in front of their eyes in hopes of saving their wallet or keeping their political party in power. Though these may be valid concerns, they are ultimately useless if the world is in jeopardy. However, these problems may cause a significant impediment for underdeveloped countries such as Africa, India, and China. These countries do not have enough funds to shift to eco-friendly fuel alternatives, especially due to the political battles that they are already fighting. Hence, requiring international assistance to transfer to renewable resources. In addition, these underdeveloped countries are bearing the adverse effects caused by the developed countries. Political involvement has the power to greatly impact climate change, for the better or worse. The need for global political consensus to alleviate further destruction of the planet is the need of the hour. After all, climate change impacts and aggravates poverty and requires the dedication of resources meant for development to mitigate the negative risk and impact. Sources: -https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/ -https://climate.miami.edu/politics-of-climate-change/ -https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/europes-drought-could-signal-the-death-of-river-cruising/ar-AA10DPwa -https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/202206 -https://earthandhuman.org/reasons-people-deny-climate-change/ -https://www.climate.gov/ -https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage Written by: Neville Kanga
Debates about the situation of the environment come and go, and often times, not much attention is paid toward them. Concerns about the ozone layer are breaking news one day and not the next, and the rise in sea level is only noted by the mass media only when a city gets completely flooded. Climate change is a serious problem in the United States that desperately needs to be addressed by the nation’s leaders, but unfortunately many of those politicians are not able to gauge the severity of this imminent issue. This issue is clearly displayed by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the West Virginia v. EPA case, which took place on June 30th, 2022, that limited the authority of the EPA to regulate emissions from fossil fuel plants. This ruling creates a myriad of problems for the current Biden administration which was attempting to combat climate change thus further stalling efforts to save the planet. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Congressionally authorized agency, established the Clean Power Plan under former President Barack Obama, which gave the agency the power to place restrictions on the amount of pollution that could be emitted by coal and natural gas power plants. However, more than half the nation’s states appealed against this law, and in 2016, the Supreme Court ceased the enforcement of the Clean Power Plan. To make matters worse for the EPA, former President Donald Trump and his administration took down the Clean Power Plan, claiming that “‘significantly exceeded’ its authority under federal environmental law”. After several back-and-forth court cases between supporters of the Clean Power Plan versus the Trump administration, the states took the case to the highest court in the nation: the Supreme Court. After much debate, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA, stating that its Clean Power Plan “does not empower the agency to put a limit on emissions and force power plants to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy” with a vote of 6-3. Does this mean all climate change action is halted in the U.S.? Although the EPA does not have the jurisdiction to directly place emissions restrictions on power plants, it still has a degree of control on the amount of pollution produced by manufacturing and transportation. Furthermore, President Biden’s administration is working to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector while adhering to the Supreme Court’s ruling. In response to the new restrictions, President Biden announced that his administration will “slash greenhouse-gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2030” however no new developments have been made. Also, companies including Amazon, Apple, and Tesla advocate that “it is ‘vital’ that the EPA ‘play a lead role by regulating greenhouse gas emissions’” and have joined the fight against climate change with the Biden Administration. Even though efforts are being made to work around the Supreme Court’s constraints on the EPA, not much success has been achieved recently, and with the messy legal system in America, the future does not look promising either. However, you can make a small yet significant difference by completing simple tasks such as recycling, carpooling, and conserving resources like plastic, water, and energy. Even volunteering to clean a public park or pick up just one water bottle can make all the difference. I encourage you to advocate for cleaner and greener policies in your household, school, city, county, and even state. On your own, it may seem like nothing, but together, we can all work to save our nation and planet from climate change. Sources: -https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/supreme-court-epa-regulate-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ -https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/epa-supreme-court-ruling-effect/index.html -https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change -https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/30/environment-epa-supreme-court/ |
AuthorLatest article written and published by Alexandra Hamilton. Archives
April 2023
Categories |