HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW
THE IVY PIPELINE
TOOTH AND NAIL
INTERVIEW: BOB COHN
VOLUME L NO. 4, WINTER 2019 HARVARDPOLITICS.COM
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS WINTER 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1
HARVARDPOLITICS.COM/REDLINE
2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW WINTER 2019
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS
This issue’s cover topic was originally proposed by Marian Bothner and Savitri Fouda.
3
The Nuanced Push for American Sex Education Rachel Janfaza
6
More for Mormon Women Alexa Jordan
8
The Rise of the Pynk Vote Kate Gundersen
CAMPUS 12 Mather is a Healthy House. Are Others? Winona Guo 14 Looking for Legitimacy JD Deal 23 The Third Party Mystery Libby Palanza
17 The Ivy Pipeline Fatima Taj
UNITED STATES 20 The Myth of Algae Biofuels Joseph Winters
32 From Selfies to Progress Kendrick Foster
23
The Third Party Mystery Libby Palanza
25
How Progressive Are American Cities? Enrique Sanchez
WORLD
38 The Bollywood Dilemma Sarah Deonarain
27
Protecting Cows and Persecuting People Ajay Sarma
29
Tooth and Nail Ava Salzman
10 The Academic Edge Chloe Levine
32
From Selfies to Progress in El Salvador Kendrick Foster
35
How to Fail at Regime Change Sam Meyerson
CULTURE 38
The Bollywood Dilemma Sarah Deonarain
40
The Factory of Words Aliénor Manteau
42
Not So Black-and-White Srividya Maganti
INTERVIEWS 45
President of The Atlantic: Bob Cohn Mikael Tessema
ENDPAPER 48
To Make a Magazine Drew Pendergrass
Email: president@harvardpolitics.com. ISSN 0090-1032. Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Photographer: 12- Trina Lilja. Canva: 14. Flickr: 1,38- Paul K. The Noun Project: 29- Iconic; 31- Nada AlYafaei; 35- Luca Fruzza; 35- Tinashe Mugaye; 35- Lluisa Iborra; 41- Paul Aimé; 42,44- Eynav Raphael; 42,44- Nick Abrams. Pexels: 8,9- Element5 Digital; 25- Quintin Gellar. Pixabay: 10- Michael Jamro. Public Domain Pictures: 19- George Hodan. PxHere: 45. Unsplash: 1- Ian Dooley; 1,23- Sunyu; 3- Sincerely Media; 3- Scott Sanker; 5- Sylvie Tittel; 6- Umberto; 27- Ryan Song; 48- Bank Phrom. USDOD Archive: 37Lewis Hunsaker. Wikimedia Commons: 1,34- Idea SV; 17- Kjetil Ree; 20- Mykola Swarnick; 32- Rafael Fernandez; 32- Thommy; 40- Guillaume Armantier; 45- Anna Bross. Design by: Tosca Langbert, Madeleine LaPuerta, Trina Lilja, Will Polster, Kendall Rideout, Matthew Rossi, and Fatima Taj.
WINTER 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1
FROM THE PRESIDENT
HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS
A Nonpartisan Undergraduate Journal of Politics, Est. 1969—Vol. L, No. 4
EDITORIAL BOARD PRESIDENT: Russell Reed PUBLISHER: Wyatt Hurt ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Katie Weiner ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Jessica Boutchie STAFF DIRECTOR: Alexis Mealey SENIOR COVERS EDITOR: Sarah Shamoon ASSOCIATE COVERS EDITOR: Kendrick Foster SENIOR U.S. EDITOR: Amir Siraj ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Ilana Cohen ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Clay Oxford SENIOR WORLD EDITOR: Keshav Rastogi ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Kelsey Chen ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Corbin Duncan SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR: Savitri Fouda ASSOCIATE CULTURE EDITOR: Marian Bothner SENIOR CAMPUS EDITOR: Will Imbrie-Moore ASSOCIATE CAMPUS EDITOR: May Wang INTERVIEWS EDITOR: Gordon Kamer BUSINESS MANAGER: Cate Brock ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER: Cathy Yin SENIOR DESIGN EDITOR: Matthew Rossi ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Madeleine LaPuerta ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Trina Lilja SENIOR MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Jacob Heberle ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Nicolas Medrano SENIOR TECH DIRECTOR: Jason Huang ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Natea Eshetu Bashada ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Max Snyder COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR: Alexandra Diggs
STAFF Alienor Manteau, Alisha Ukani, Alison Chen, Allison Piper, Amy Danoff, Amy Wang, Annelisa Kingsbury Lee, Audrey Sheehy, Benjamin Firester, Bridger Gordon, Byron Hurlbut, Campbell Erickson , Carter Nakamoto, Chloe Lemmel-Hay, Chris Sun, Clara Bates, Colton Carpenter, Connor Brown, Connor Schoen, Daniel Friedman, DJ Kranchalk, Eleonore Evans, Eli Berlin, Emily Malpass, Emily Moss, Esha Chaudhuri, Ethan Schultz, Gabrielle Landry, Graham Walter, Hadley DeBello, Hafso Muse, Hope Kudo, Isabel Cole, Isabel Isselbacher, Jacob Blair, Jacob Kern, Jace McIntyre, James Blanchfield, Jamie Bikales, Jamie Weisenberg, Jay Gopalan, Jerry Huang, Johannes Lang, Jon Riege, Jose Larios, Joseph Minatel, Josh Berry, Katherine Ho, Katie Miao, Kendall Rideout, Kevin Bi, Lainey Newman, Lauren Fadiman, Lindsey Bouldin, Lu Shao, Manuel Abecasis, Marcus Trenfield, Matthew Hatfield, Matthew Shaw, Max Snyder, Meena Venkataramanan, Mfundo Radebe, Michael Montella, Michael Wornow, Mikael Tessema, Mimi Alphonsus, Natalie Dabkowski, Nick Danby, Nikole Naloy, Noah Knopf, Noah Redlich, Pawel Rybacki, Peyton Dunham, Roger Cawdette, Rumi Khan, Ryan Chung, Samantha FrenkelPopell, Sandy Koenig, Sanika Mahajan, Sarah Tisdall, Satish Wasti, Sophie Dicara, Tamara Shamir, Tom Slack, Trina Lilja, Vanessa Ruales, Will Finigan, William Boggs, Winona Guo, Yash Kumbhat, Yashaar Hafizka, Yuri-Grace Ohashi, Zachary Buttenwieser, Zehan Zhou SENIOR WRITERS: Akshaya Annapragada, Alicia Zhang, Andrew Zucker, Anirudh Suresh, Beverly Brown, Chad Borgman, Darwin Peng, Drew Pendergrass, Eve Driver, Hank Sparks, Nicolas Yan, Perry Arrasmith
ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke E.J. Dionne, Jr. Ron Fournier
Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz
2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW WINTER 2019
It is a groan-worthy platitude that American politics is dominated by old men. The United States ranks 75th in the world for women’s representation in government, with women comprising only 25 percent of the Senate and 23 percent of the House. But increasingly, candidates from outside the “Old Boys’ Club” are challenging outdated notions of what an American leader should look like. The power of young women, and the obstacles they face to actualizing that power, remain under-evaluated and unresolved in a country that has yet to elect a woman president. In “GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS,” we explore the potential of young women to shape American and global politics, giving them the analytical attention popular media often fails to. In the final issue published by the HPR’s 51st editorial board, four writers consider the role of young women in American politics. In “The Nuanced Push for American Sex Education,” Rachel Janfaza investigates the roadblocks to comprehensive sex ed in the United States, despite its far-reaching and widely accepted benefits for adolescents. Alexa Jordan calls for a more inclusive Mormonism in “More for Mormon Women,” warning that current doctrine may drive young women out of the religion. In “The Rise of the Pynk Vote,” Kate Gundersen considers the increasing influence of young female voters, who are pushing for action on climate change, gun control, and the right to choose. Chloe Levine uses high school Quiz Bowl tournaments as a lens into early gendered discrimination in “The Academic Edge,” arguing that women’s educational disadvantages begin long before college. At the Harvard Political Review, we are no strangers to these challenges. When I joined the magazine in 2016, less than one third of our leadership positions were filled by women. There were infrastructural barriers to women’s success, the gravest being the absence of reporting infrastructure for cases of sexual harassment and assault. But beyond these tangible infrastructural failures, our magazine faced challenges common across academia, politics, and journalism alike: In male-dominated
fields, women are less likely to see themselves in leadership, a form of disenfranchisement that perpetuates male dominance. This year, we have worked tirelessly to combat gendered barriers in our content and our community, as well as those affecting ethnic, racial, and sexual minorities. We have done this not only because it is the ‘right thing to do,’ but also because we fail in our mission to serve as a platform for Harvard students when we fail to represent our campus’s many voices. It is with both happiness and nostalgia that I write my final note to you, our readers, as president of this magazine. It has been an honor to work alongside the 200-plus editors, writers, designers, tech wizzes, photographers, and business gurus who together create the content you see, in print and online. I am most proud of the progress we have made this year toward becoming an accessible, inclusive, and welcoming platform for Harvard students of all identities, not just those who historically see themselves in politics and journalism. Our progress became clear to me during our early November election, a cacophonous and exhausting 10-hour process that resulted in the magazine’s first-ever majority-female masthead, and likely the most ethnically and racially diverse team in our history. These women have long been vital to our success yet chronically underrepresented in our leadership. It is with great pride and confidence that I pass the reins to our first female president in five years, Alexis Mealey, whose vision for the magazine has been pivotal to my own. I hope you continue to enjoy our magazine for many years to come, and thank you for being part of our extended family.
Russell Reed President
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS
Rachel Janfaza
WINTER 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS
A
ccording to the Sexuality and Information Council of the United States, only 38 percent of high schools and 14 percent of middle schools across the country teach all 19 topics identified as critical for sex education by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite research demonstrating the health benefits of comprehensive sex education that dates back to the 1980s and even earlier, abstinence-only curricula have historically been the federal go-to, establishing a dichotomy between what the science reveals and what American classrooms have the funds to teach. While federal barriers may complicate the conversation around sex education, many advocates and legislators are working tirelessly to ensure comprehensive sex education. When the need for comprehensive sex education is explained, especially by young people who feel its impact the most, the public tends to listen, even in areas where resistance to sex ed is strong. In truth, sex education in America is not as controversial as it seems. In fact, public opinion overwhelmingly supports sex education. But while most Americans believe in sex education, Americans do not all agree on the best way to do it. And, as far as experts are concerned, sex education is not practiced across the country the way it should be. At the federal level, certain initiatives and politicians have tried and failed to regulate sex education. Given the variety of opinions and sensitivities around the once taboo topic of sex, sex-ed legislation works best when approached at the state or local level, as demonstrated in states such as Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and Washington. BY THE NUMBERS The fight for sex ed gets complicated because sex is complicated. But while sex may be complicated, the American desire for education is not. When America argues over sex ed, the disagreement is never really about the need to educate our children, but rather about the topics of politics, religion, sexuality, and gender that are all inherently linked to sex. For this reason, as Jennifer Driver, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at SIECUS told the HPR, successful advocates for sex ed provide a nuanced, gradual, “half-baked approach” to sex education. Historically, there has been a major gap between public opinion and public policy with regard to sex education. According to a study by NARAL Pro-Choice America, “the public overwhelmingly supports age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education, yet anti-choice policymakers promote restrictive abstinenceonly programs that censor information about contraception and STD/HIV prevention strategies.” “Sex education is incredibly popular,” explained Sara Flowers, vice president of education at Planned Parenthood. “Whether looking at political beliefs, geographics, socioeconomic status, or demographics, we have seen through likely voter surveys that there’s resounding support for sex education across the country. There’s this stereotype that sex ed is controversial, but it really isn’t. There’s resounding support for sex ed.” And, according to NARAL, a 2012 survey demonstrated that 93 percent of adults and 87 percent of teens deem it important to receive information about both abstinence and contraception.
4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW WINTER 2019
For Americans, it cannot just be one or the other. A Planned Parenthood study from 2014 also demonstrates that Americans overwhelmingly support sex education, with over 90 percent of parents reporting that it is important to have sex ed in middle and high school. These parents advocated for comprehensive sex ed, saying that sex ed should incoporate topics including birth control, STDs, healthy versus unhealthy relationships, abstinence, and sexual orientation. According to these statistics, abstinence-only sex ed is insufficient. ABSTINENCE-ONLY AND A LOOK AT THE RESISTANCE Abstinence-Only, and a Look at the Resistance But as mentioned, federal policies have historically favored abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, and these programs have been popular across the aisle. The federal government has allocated over $2 billion to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs since 1982. In particular, the Clinton administration heavily supported these programs, and even allocated $250 million for them. Although they came to an intermittent pause in 2010, abstinence-only programs have again seen the light of day with the Trump-Pence administration. Beyond the aforementioned abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, it is critical to note that there has always been and still is a resistance movement to sex education in general. Across time, resistance to sex education has arisen in communities with a tradition of little sex education, and which thus become shocked at the introduction of comprehensive sex ed. “There’s a very strong-but-small movement against sex and sexuality. That movement is very well-funded and has done a successful job of getting people to have doubts about sexual education and [believe] that if you provide sexuality education, young people are more likely to be sexually active. But that is inaccurate info,” Tamara Kreanin, director of the Population and Reproductive Health Program from the Packard Foundation and former executive director of Women and Population at the United Nations Foundation, told the HPR. From Kreanin’s experience, when advocating for sex education in school districts where sex education had previously faltered — for example, a community on the border in Texas — “ultimately what had the major impact was the young people from the school themselves speaking out and talking about how important comprehensive sex education is. They talked about their peers getting pregnant and syphilis and HIV, and I think what ended up having the biggest impact was the voice of the students,” she said. THE ROLE OF THIRD-PARTY ORGANIZATIONS There is no denying that it has been difficult to implement comprehensive sex ed in American schools. As a result, thirdparty organizations and groups such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the Unitarian Church have stepped in to offer comphrensive sex education outside of the classroom while simultaneously advocating for better sex ed within schools. For example, Planned Parenthood, the largest sex-ed provider in the country, not only delivers its own sex-ed workshops and online information, but also develops relationships with
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS
sex-ed curricula. The Unitarian Church’s comprehensive sex-ed curriculum, Our Whole Lives, is one of the most well-regarded in the country. These third-party organizations that supplement and foster sex ed in America’s schools have made major headway in the push for comprehensive sexual education. “We recognize sex ed in schools as an incredible opportunity because young people are in schools,” Flowers told the HPR. “But it’s important to understand that sex ed in schools is not the only place where sex education happens neither historically nor currently. It’s always been a partnership in schools and out-of-school spaces where sex education happens.” Kreanin agreed with Flowers. “It’s important to think of sex education from three different lenses,” she told the HPR. “In schools, out of the school setting, whether that’s an afterschool setting or a safe community, and online. In an ideal world, you have all three,” she said. KEEPING IT CLOSE TO HOME: STATE LEVEL AND LOCAL POLICIES While it may be easy to keep after-school and online curricula similar across state lines, it proves much harder to do so in public schools. When it comes to sex ed in schools, individual states, and often even individual districts, have the ability to implement their own curricula — or not incorporate sex ed at all. In recent years, many advocacy groups and state level governments have made concerted pushes to improve their commitment to comprehensive sex-ed curricula in public schools. “There’s definitely a pathway to legislation for sex ed at the state level,” Driver told the HPR. “We spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to improve the education system and sex ed is a component. In science classes, there’s a foundation you need … The same thing needs to happen with sex ed. There needs to be a focused foundation setting in K-5 that introduces what it means to be a good friend and how to have strong friendships and family relationships.” Driver emphasized that students can move into much stronger conversations about sex ed after, and only after, that foundation is set. Comphrensive sex-ed curriculums are lauded by experts because they incorporate foundation setting and a focus on relationship building before launching into higher-level material. State legislators are latching on to the push for comprehensive sex ed too. Successful campaigns for state-level comprehensive sex-ed legislation have happened across the country, with notable crusades in Colorado, Illinois, Texas, and Washington. Although Colorado public schools are still not required to teach sex ed, Colorado abides by local control laws. This means that if districts decide to teach sex ed at all, they have the ability to choose their own sex-ed curriculum. Experts praise Colorado’s local efforts and commend a new state law signed by Governor Jared Polis last May, which mandates that if schools are to teach sex ed, they must teach a comprehensive curriculum that includes conversations around consent. The bill also gives $1 million to fund sex-ed grants in schools and districts; these grants will be overseen by a parent representative and a youth representative, as well as someone to represent students of color. Illinois has followed a very similar path and also now
requires that when sex ed is taught, it is comprehensive. This means it must include conversations around healthy relationships and consent. Meanwhile, policymakers in Texas, a state where abstinence-only sex ed has been a prescribed norm for the past 20 years and the fervent anti-sex-ed movement has a strong foothold, have suggested reworking state law to incorporate conversations about contraceptives, healthy relationships, and consent as well. And in Washington, while a proposed mandatory sex-ed bill failed last April, policymakers continue to fight for comprehensive state-wide sexual education. The bill’s passage through the state senate demonstrates the progress made by Washington’s sex-ed advocates. AND AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ... In addition to advocating for policy at the state level, Driver told the HPR that her organization continues to push for two priority bills at the federal level. One of these bills is the Real Education for Healthy Youth Act, sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), which “would be the first ever comprehensive sex-ed bill,” Driver said. The other is the Youth Access to Sexual Health Services Act, sponsored by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), which would ensure access to services particularly for LGBTQ youth and communities of color. In prioritizing sex ed at the federal level, Driver said that society must recognize sex ed’s impact on many other social issues: “Sex ed links to overall education. It links to reducing transphobia and homophobia and reducing sexual assault. If we were to prioritize and recognize the connection to so many other social issues it would be easier. Our downfall is that people see sex ed and see a six-to-12-week curriculum and then we’re done, but that’s not sex ed. It may be a curriculum and more.” When discussing sex education in America in 2019, advocates need to make clear that sex education has support across party and geographic lines, and that sex education is, after all, just education. All in all, sex education is just “responding to an inextricable part of our humanity,” said Driver. “There are real opportunities in this field to think about how we scaffold and integrate sex ed into adulthood. The knowledge and skills of sex ed provide and support relationships with others.”
WINTER 2019 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5