Director of Carr Center Selected for British Parliament
by Joel Kenrick on October 30, 2009 in HKS News, News
Professor Rory Stewart, who was appointed Director of the Harvard Carr Center for Human Rights only last year, looks certain to become a Member of Parliament (MP) in the United Kingdom after an expenses scandal claimed the scalps of leading politicians in the British Parliament.
On October 25, Stewart was selected as the Conservative candidate in the Penrith and Borders constituency in northern England. The seat has been held by the Conservative party since it was created in 1950, and is considered one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.
The current MP, David Maclean, announced in June he would be standing down for health reasons after it was revealed that he used taxpayer money to renovate his home, which he then sold tax-free.
A former Iraqi provincial governor, best-selling author and leading authority on military intervention, Stewart said before the election that he was deeply “conflicted” about the prospect of leaving the Kennedy School and a job he has “really begun to enjoy more and more” after such a short period.
“I took the job [of Director] assuming there was no chance of going into Parliament for at least six years,” Stewart said. “I wasn’t even a member of the Conservative Party at the time.”
But last year, dozens of Members of Parliament announced they would be standing down due to an expenses scandal. David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservative Party, publicly called on ‘ordinary’ members of the public to apply to become candidates for the party at the 2010 election.
Rory Stewart was one of those to answer the call and was quickly added to the ‘A’ list of candidates that local parties were asked to choose from when drawing up a short-list to replace retiring MPs.
While his family is from Scotland, Rory Stewart was born in Hong Kong and brought up in Malaysia. On his return to Britain, he was educated at Eton boarding school and was an army officer before studying at Balliol College, Oxford. While studying, he worked as a summer tutor to Prince William and Prince Harry.
After leaving Oxford, Stewart was fast-tracked through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he was posted to Indonesia and Montenegro. Yet in 2000, at the age of only 27, he gave up his promising career and spent 20 months walking 6,000 miles across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and Nepal, staying in over 500 villages along the way.
On his return, he wrote about his experiences in The Places in Between, a New York Times bestseller, before travelling by taxi to Baghdad in 2003, only months after the invasion. Within a month, he was acting Governor of Maysan, a southern Iraqi province.
After serving as a Carr Center fellow in 2005, he founded the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, a charity he still runs, which aims to conserve the old city in Kabul and revive traditional artisan skills in Afghanistan.
Professor Stewart’s practical experiences have proved valuable in teaching his popular course, War, States and Interventions, a course aimed at policy makers and practitioners in post-conflict states.
“The course is valuable in that it presents the complexity of the situation on the ground,” said Colonel Debra Sinnott, a National Security Fellow. “He is honest about there being no set answers and leads us through the hard questions to ask.” In the early weeks of the course, Stewart cantered through hundreds of years of enlightenment theory and readings from war poets, classic novels, and colonial essayists.
“He will spend half an hour on the rhetorical basis of speech patterns and assign readings about forest management in ancient Prussia,” said Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Donahoe, also a National Security Fellow. “Initially, you question why, but he is a very gifted individual with an ability to bring these readings back and use it as a very effective prism.”
Stewart has played down his current influence, though he is known to have advised leading American officials on future policy in Afghanistan. ‘The most I can do is to lay out some of the issues if a politician is looking for a way of explaining them. That’s why I enjoy spending time with [Senator] Kerry and [former] Senator George] McGovern. I try to produce stories they can relate to in their own speeches.”
Stewart admitted he can sometimes “be restless and impatient” but has argued that his experiences as a soldier, civil servant, charity worker, teacher and writer are ideal training for a politician.
“I realized as a civil servant the limits to policy influence. At least in Britain, if the main interest is in influencing policy, then you need to be in Parliament.”
Park Cleanup Caps A Week of Public Service Celebration
by JonGlassman on October 30, 2009 in HKS News, News
The Student Public Service Collaborative (SPSC) held its annual Fall Day of Service (FDS) on Oct. 22, asking HKS students, faculty, and staff to leave the ivory tower for a few hours and get their hands dirty maintaining a number of Boston parks.
About 50 members of the HKS community participated in FDS, including Dean Ellwood and about 15 other staff and faculty members. The participants split themselves between Smith Park and Union Joyce Park in nearby Brighton, MA, where they helped collect trash, clean up fallen branches and leaves, and spread mulch.
The event coincided with the end of Public Service Week, a university-wide initiative spearheaded by Harvard President Drew Faust. While many students saw FDS as the culmination of Public Service Week, SPSC and the administration were eager to point out that volunteer community service is just one of many ways in which HKS students are already involved in public service.
“One thing that’s wonderful is that this week we’ve been able to illustrate the variety of ways that people contribute to doing public service and enhancing the public good,” said HKS Dean David Ellwood.
In addition to the FDS parks clean-up, some of the week’s events at HKS included a Hauser Center event featuring George Soros and Michael Sandel and Forum events with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, David Axelrod, and present and former leaders of the Carr center. The Office of Career Advancement (OCA) also sponsored a weeklong “Demystifying DC” event series, all highlighting various forms of public service.
In response to student comments that the Public Service Week events at HKS seem no different than any other week’s events, Dean Ellwood said, “if you tell me that’s a typical week at the Kennedy School, that makes me thrilled. We’re all here because we want to make the world a better place, and we can and should be living that every day.”
Some students questioned the wisdom of designating a Public Service Week, pointing out they are already dedicated to public service at HKS. Sarah Wald, chief of staff and senior advisor to Dean Ellwood, said in response, “Public service is not something in isolation that we want to do just one week per year, but it’s important to sometimes take a step back and explicitly point it out and celebrate it.”
The one-year-old SPSC worked hard to celebrate public service at HKS. During the summer, SPSC co-directors Pamela Chan, MPA ’10 and David Baumwoll, MPP ’10 chose the parks clean-up for FDS in order to address the SPSC mission to “integrate public service into the culture of HKS, offer a continuum of service opportunities, and support the pursuit of careers in public service.”
According to Chan, FDS is “a community building event to bring together people who normally don’t get to interact. We came up with the idea for park services because it was something that could be done in one day and that everyone can participate in and that would allow for active interaction [among students].”
Chan added, “The city spends a lot of money trying to deal with falling leaves every year. They were so enthusiastic to have a group of people willing to come out and spend a day to rake up the leaves
and help do some park maintenance. It is a public service that’s helpful for the Boston community, but it’s also helpful for our community as we get to know each other better.”
The administration reached beyond the student body to encourage involvement from the greater HKS community, offering paid time off to HKS staff, continuing a policy started during SPSC’s Spring Day of Service (SDS) event last year.
According to Zara Snapp, MPP ’10 last year’s co-organizer for SDS, “there was a very strong representation of administration and staff. It gave us an opportunity to shed our institutional roles and just hang out and spend time together.”
KSSG Focused On Improving Student Space
by Michael Zakaras, News Asst. Editor on October 30, 2009 in HKS News, News
For those students who have been grumbling about the lack of space at HKS – study space, eating space, socializing space – KSSG wants you to know that they hear you loud and clear. Improving student space is their top priority.
Students can expect changes in Taubman and the HKS library, as well as stricter regulations about when the Forum is set up for visiting speakers.
“This is such an important issue,” said KSSG President Dave Baumwoll, “because for many HKS is a second home. People spend all day here. We need to make sure that all students feel there is enough space designated for them.”
Over the last month, the number of complaints about the lack of such space has been on the rise. Students’ biggest complaint? Getting kicked out of the Forum earlier and more often to make way for speakers. At this point, most students have experienced being ushered out just as they were settling in to start a problem set or group project, sometimes as early as 1:30 p.m.
“This has happened to me more than once,” said Melanie Hui, MPP ‘11. “I sit down in one of the whiteboard cubicles, pull out my work, and then I’m told to leave. Then the question becomes, do I even bother searching or just go home?”
This is when the mass scramble to find unused space begins. Some may venture down to the library, but those working with a group will most likely head to Taubman. If they’re lucky enough to nab one of the half dozen wobbly tables on the ground floor, they’ll huddle around and try to block out the symphony of echoed voices or the amateur ping-pong tournaments that sprout up now and again.
“I remember once in Taubman, I was working with a few people on econ, and next thing we knew, a big group of people piled in for a cocktail reception,” said Melissa Gillooly, MPP ‘11. “They were literally bumping into us, and we could hardly hear each other. But we didn’t want to leave because we knew how hard it would be to find another spot.”
Most MPP1s have probably heard by now about the Kennedy School’s former Town Hall, which was demolished over the summer to make space for the Hauser Center. Once the heart of student space at HKS, its removal was controversial and has put pressure on the administration to do more to improve the student environment.
Baumwoll said the space issue has been the largest source of dissatisfaction among students this year and last. In the current economic climate, plans for constructing new space are unlikely any time soon. “The question becomes: How do we maximize what we have?” Baumwoll said.
At the top of the KSSG’s to-do list is a Forum agreement whereby facilities will never begin set up for a Forum event more than three hours before an event begins.
Plans for improving the space in Taubman are also being floated. Students may have already noticed that couches were moved down to the rotunda. Some have suggested featuring student artwork on the columns, and even bringing in a flat-screen TV.
As for study space, architectural plans for a library renovation are being submitted. They involve removing many older books and reconfiguring layout to accommodate more students, including those looking for group study space.
Imran Alimohammed, KSSG Vice-President of Student Services, is facilitating the effort, which he described as especially collaborative and welcoming of student voices. “I sat down with the architects and saw them change their drawings right in front of me based on student feedback,” he said. A timeline for renovations is expected once plans are finalized.
Finally, there’s the space within the Hauser Center on the ground floor that KSSG is pushing to be designated for students after 4 p.m., in part to accommodate overflow when Forum events are scheduled.
According to Baumwoll and others at KSSG, the current administration has been highly receptive to student input and plans for space improvements. Despite the continued negotiations between the KSSG, the administration, and the architects involved in various renovation projects, students will continue to have to play detective as they search out dedicated meeting areas on the HKS campus.
HKS Students Brief World Bank President
by Kevin Miller on October 30, 2009 in HKS News, News
Photo courtesy of World Bank
World Bank President Bob Zoellick, MPP ’81, in deep discussion with HKS students gathered around a narrow table at the World Bank headquarters, waved away staffers reminding him that the 45- minutes set aside for the meeting had long since expired.
On Oct. 16, ten HKS students pitched their ideas on the global food crisis in front of Zoellick and other World Bank executives in Washington, D.C.
The students were the winners of the 2009 Spring Exercise, a cornerstone of the MPP program. Last year, students wrestled with developing solutions to concerns of food security and world hunger.
Discussion evolved around how Zoellick is retooling the World Bank to delve into redevelopment and attack the issues of hunger and food security in unconventional ways. Zoellick offered thorough analysis and critique of what the students brought.
“[Zoellick] had them stop and think about each individual decision,” said Professor Sheila Burke, who accompanied the students. “And the students did a wonderful job of making their case through the analysis.”
High-spirited evaluation of choices from framing to analytical tools complemented and extended a question-and-answer session. Students were treated to an inside look at where Zoellick is steering the organization whose every move has widespread impact on global policy issues.
Three World Bank Vice Presidents lauded the scope and depth of the briefing. Ke Ji, MPP ’10 recalled one saying, “Oh my gosh, [Pres. Zoellick] was really impressed. If he’s not engaged, he’ll just be polite. If he’s interested, he really drills down.’
Kyoung Lee, MPP ’10 relished in the “unfiltered access” to Zoellick, as the institution over which he presides figured largely in her policy memo.
“It was so wonderful,” said Lee. “He exemplifies the ability to be strategic at 30,000 miles above and then dive right down into the weeds for detail,” said Lee.
World Bank staff had been closely involved with all aspects the 2009 Spring Exercise, from the design of the problem to Vice-Presidents playing the role of Zoellick at HKS to evaluate every briefing team.
“It makes me really understand how fortunate I am to have been able to attend the Kennedy School,” Zac Ginsberg, MPP ’10 said. “As a social-justice-minded individual, I can only aspire to continue to share my ideas with those who are committed to such laudable undertakings as solving global poverty.”
V-Khye Fan, MPP ’10 agreed. “It was really cool to see his focus on the ‘world’ part of the World Bank.”
For Ginsberg, the highlight of the meeting was a Socratic discussion on the magnitude of the policy challenges with which they had tangled.
“Once we finally admitted there wasn’t an easy answer, [it] gave way to the President’s eloquent analysis of the issue at hand,” he said. For some, it was another lesson in the education that often takes place outside the walls of the Kennedy School’s classrooms – that the world’s biggest problems have no straightforward solutions, even to the most experienced and intelligent public servants.
As students and staff alike acknowledged, however, those methods must fit within the current environment of the global community.
“President Zoellick discussed how a plan has to succeed not just in itself, but in a certain atmosphere,” said Fan.
Some participants pointed out that, while the rigors of the Spring Exercise were daunting, the experience helped them as they begin their second year towards the Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) capstone research project.
“The Spring Exercise defined my PAE,” said Fan. “It tied my background at the Department of Defense with my core courses and set it all into a different context.”
Citizen Conversation With…Stephen Walt
by Matt Bieber, News Writer on October 30, 2009 in Citizen Conversation with..., Features
pg
Photo courtesy of Taylor Chapman, MPP’11. Interview Conducted by Matt Bieber, News Writer, MPP’11.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Rene Belfer Professsor of International Relations. He presently serves on the editorial boards of Foreign Policy, Security Studies, International Relations, and Journal of Cold War Studies, and he also serves as Co-Editor of the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs, published by Cornell University Press.
In an article and a subsequent book published a couple of years ago, you and John Mearsheimer argued that the Israel lobby exerts a power over U.S. foreign policy that can’t be explained in terms of American or Israeli interests, nor in terms of America’s moral obligations. So can you summarize your argument for our readers?
The basic argument of the book is that there is a powerful interest group—a coalition of different individuals and organizations—that seeks to maintain a “special relationship” between the United States and Israel. In particular, the special relationship means that the United States gives Israel extraordinary amounts of economic, military, and diplomatic support, and does so more-or-less unconditionally. No matter what Israel does, in short, it continues to receive economic, military, and diplomatic backing.
We argued that this special relationship was primarily due to domestic politics in the United States, and tried to explain exactly how that worked. We emphasize that the lobby’s activities were legitimate forms of political participation and far from unique– that there were lots of other interest groups that did similar things—though few groups were as influential.
We also maintained that the special relationship was not good for either the United States or Israel. It was undermining America’s interests in the Middle East and elsewhere, and encouraging Israeli policies that were not in Israel’s long-term interest. Accordingly, we argued that a more normal relationship would be better for both countries.
By writing the book, we hoped to get the subject more out in the open and get people talking about it, given that it had been something of a taboo subject for many years. Needless to say, the reaction of some of our critics confirmed that this is still a difficult subject to talk about in a calm and rational way, although I would argue that the discussion has become somewhat more open since our work was published.
Do you see Obama’s relationship with the Israel lobby as different than Bush’s was?
Maybe at the margin, but there has yet to be sharp break with past behavior. President Bush was as unconditionally supportive of Israel as any American president has ever been and yet he also did a number of things that were unintentionally quite harmful to Israel, and needless to say, to the United States as well. Not because he intended to, of course, but because the policies he pursued were not very smart.
President Obama has suggested on several occasions that he has a somewhat more nuanced view of this issue. For example, he has said that “Good friends ought to be able to disagree with one another, and that sometimes that’s the right thing to do,” which implies some recognition that US and Israeli interests aren’t identical. But I’ve yet to see him actually deliver on that sentiment. He has made some great speeches, but so far, the special relationship has not been affected one way or the other, and he has not been willing to use American leverage to try and advance the peace process in a significant way.
In your view, is there anything that American leadership can do to advance the peace process?
The United States has enormous potential leverage over most of the relevant parties. We have a lot of leverage on the Palestinians, who depend on us for economic aid and diplomatic backing because they’re almost powerless themselves. We’ve also played a constructive role in helping create a more reliable Palestinian security force. If we stopped doing that, that would be a real problem for the Palestinian National Authority.
So we have lots of leverage with them and we haven’t been shy about using it in the past. We’ve put pressure on the Palestinians for decades, both to recognize Israel’s right to exist before and then to make various concessions as part of the peace process.
We also have enormous potential leverage on Israel. Not only do we provide them with $3-4 billion in aid every year, but we’re also their principal diplomatic ally and protector. The problem is that no American president really has ever been willing to use leverage, mostly because they had been worried about the domestic political consequences of doing so. So you have this bizarre situation, where every president since Lyndon Johnson—including President Obama—says that Israel should stop building settlements. The Israeli government refuses and then all Obama says is, “Well, you know, that’s regrettable” and doesn’t do anything else.
If it wished, the United States could have actually ended this conflict a long time ago, but no American president had the political courage to do it. And that’s tragic. Dean Ellwood likes to talk about the need to “Act in Time,” and this is an obvious case where the United States has consistently failed to do so. The result is that the situation there has gotten steadily worse, and the two-state solution that Obama says he wants may no longer be possible.
Could an American president condition some portion of our support on Israel halting the construction of settlements and expect to survive the domestic backlash?
I think it would be difficult, but if an American president made it a priority and actively explained the situation to the American people—including Christian evangelicals and Jewish Americans who have been very supportive of Israel—many of them would support [the president]….Not all, but many of them would.
It would involve some use of the “bully pulpit” to explain why putting pressure on both sides was really necessary. You’d have to explain why doing so was in America’s interest but it was also in the Palestinians’ interest and in Israel’s interest. In particular, you need to point out that all of the alternatives to a two-state solution look substantially worse. If you do that, then I think an American president could succeed.
I would also argue that our current president is unusually well-equipped to do that. He’s very articulate, he’s very smart, and I think he understands the issues quite well. Unfortunately, he’s also got about nine million other things that he’s supposed to solve in the next three or four years, and they aren’t going to be easy either. So whether this issue will rank high enough on his list of priorities to get that kind of attention, I just don’t know. That’s why I’m not particularly optimistic about any real progress.
Can you describe what you think the world would look like if Iran did acquire a weapon? Are we overly concerned?
Yes, I think we are overly concerned. I don’t think an Iranian bomb would be a good thing, of course, and I would prefer Iran not acquire them. I can even make a case for why it’s not in Iran’s interest to go all the way across the threshold to a full nuclear capability. But if Iran did do that, it would not have particularly dramatic effects. They couldn’t use a weapon against anyone that we care about because we could retaliate. Or in the case of Israel, Israel could retaliate on its own.
And if you look at other countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, having a bomb didn’t suddenly give them extraordinary global influence. It didn’t let the Soviet Union blackmail anybody, and it didn’t let China blackmail anybody. It hasn’t made it possible for the United States [to] simply tell people what to do and get them to obey.
You occasionally hear this idea that if Iran got nuclear weapons, it would begin throwing its weight around and telling all these countries in the Middle East to do what it wanted….[B]ut no other nuclear power has been able to do that, so it’s fanciful to think Iran would be able to wield enormous influence just because it tested a nuclear device.
So again, an Iranian bomb would not be a good thing; I’d rather they didn’t [acquire one]. We ought to be looking for different ways to persuade them not to go all the way. But if they did, we would immediately find ways to live with it. In fact, we would start telling everyone that it didn’t matter very much.
I’d like to push back a bit in two ways. One, there are those who argue that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it would immediately inspire an arms race among Iran’s neighbors in the region. What do you make of this argument? And two, do we need to worry about the possibility that Iran could use a nuclear capability against Israel in a way that would make Israel incapable of responding? Elliott Abrams used the phrase “a one-bomb country” to describe Israel when he spoke in the Forum several weeks ago.
A regional arms race might happen, but that isn’t inevitable. If you look at when other countries have acquired nuclear weapons, it hasn’t immediately led to regional arms races, either. North Korea is now testing nuclear weapons, but South Korea is not building a bomb and Japan is not [pursuing] a bomb. The Philippines aren’t trying things like that. So you don’t see this sort of “proliferation chain” happening automatically.
By the way, the possibility of a regional arms race is one reason why Iran might actually be better off not going all the way to an active nuclear capability. They are the most populous country in the Persian Gulf. They have the most economic potential there. Over time, they are likely to be the dominant power in that part of the world, which means if it remains a nuclear-free area, they’re going to have more influence than they would have if countries like Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear deterrents of their own.
You could make the argument that Iran ought to have the capacity to go nuclear if it ever had to but it should refrain from exercising that capability - the condition of nuclear latency.
As for the one-bomb argument, Israel is not so small that you drop one bomb on it [and] it would destroy everything, though it would certainly be a horrific event. But more importantly, Iran is not going to attack Israel because the Israelis would undoubtedly have ways to retaliate. The Iranians could never be certain that a dozen, two-dozen Israeli bombs wouldn’t find their way back to Tehran, completely destroying their society.
There’s never been any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran’s leaders are suicidal, and you’d be committing suicide if you attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. And for what? If you dropped a bomb on Jerusalem, you destroy the third holiest site in all of Islam. If Iran is led by a bunch of people who take Islam seriously, as we are led to believe, it’s hard to imagine that this is what they would do if they were to acquire a nuclear capability. So I think this is another case where we’ve suffered from a certain degree of threat-mongering.
One final topic: Afghanistan. Do you oppose the notion of sending more American troops to Afghanistan?
Yes.
What’s the best course of action for President Obama at this point?
I think President Obama should be looking for ways to end America’s military involvement in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible, but that can’t be done instantaneously. It doesn’t mean that our presence there would go to zero, but that basically, we should not be trying to fight a counter-insurgency war against the Taliban. We should be letting Afghanistan settle its own problems.
Our major objective in Central Asia should be to focus on anti-American terrorists, and especially Al-Qaeda. We should not be trying to determine the political fate of 32 million Muslims in Afghanistan, along with the 180 million Muslims located in Pakistan. We don’t have the knowledge or the capacity to socially engineer either of these societies and we are as likely to make things worse as to make things better, and at considerable costs to ourselves.
It sounds like you think that despite America having intervened in Afghanistan, we don’t have any ongoing moral obligation to stay.
No. There can be circumstances where there’s some moral responsibility involved, but there are clearly limits as well. In particular, the moral obligation is limited when you don’t really have the ability to improve the situation. I tend to analyze this situation in very straightforward cost-benefit terms. [The] costs there are substantial and rising. [The] benefits, even if we succeed, are relatively minimal. For Americans, the primary benefit would be helping to lower the risk of Al-Qaeda-based terrorism, and I don’t believe victory in Afghanistan makes much difference one way or the other. Victory will not eliminate Al-Qaeda and defeat isn’t going to make Al-Qaeda substantially more powerful.
Finally, we have to ask, “What’s the likelihood of success?” You’re not morally obligated if there’s nothing you could do that would actually make things better. In my view, waging a large-scale counter-insurgency campaign there is ultimately going to fail, and it is not going to make things better in Afghanistan.
There are things we can and should do, along with other members of the international community. We can continue to do economic development projects in the areas that are relatively stable. We can continue a modest effort to train Afghan security forces, but our presence should be as small as possible. I’d be aiming to try and have us out of Afghanistan about as rapidly as we’re getting out of Iraq, and make it clear that Afghanistan’s fate will be determined by the Afghans, not by us.
A Treatise on Fandom: The Community of “We”
by Chris Arlene, Sports Editor on October 30, 2009 in Sports
Photo courtesy of Chris Arlene, MPP\'10
I was sitting at home watching playoff baseball with two of my roommates, Andy Schrag (2L at the Law School and a fine guy) and Jay Kairam (hilarious MPP’10 from upstate New York who plays a mean guitar), when we naturally happened upon an age-old fan question: what are the rules governing the appropriate use of “we” or “they” when referring to the sports teams you support? This might seem trivial, but I’ve actually felt regret when, upon reflection, I’ve realized I violated the unofficial code of fandom (please don’t judge me).
The concept is simple: only true fans can use “we” when referring to a team. Using “we” represents not only a commitment to your team, but membership in a larger community of fans. And communities have rules, implicit or stated, governing and assigning membership. With no single leader to guide us, it’s a fan’s responsibility to hold themselves and others accountable. This may seem a little draconian to the casual observer, but as a self-proclaimed sports snob, I think it’s fine. Here are the three tenets of “The Arlene Theory of Fandom”:
Rule #1: You can’t use “we” if you don’t substantively know your team.
This may seem obvious, but it’s a pervasive problem. For example, last year one of my former roommates kept saying “we” when referring to his favorite football team. After a few too many “we”s, one of my other roommates simply asked him to name a handful of players on the team. He couldn’t. He was then instructed to stop using “we.” A true fan should know most of the players on a pro roster, including backups, and a casual fan should know more than just the stars. If the only Dodger you can name is Manny Rodriguez, you can’t use “we.” (I’ll be taking bets on my ability to name the rosters of the Eagles, Phillies, or Sixers).
Rule #2: You can’t use “we” when your team wins and “they” when they lose.
This one is all about loyalty. Being a fan is like being married, except there is no irreconcilable differences clause that allows you to change teams as often as King Henry VIII changed wives (you can’t behead the coach or start a new league either). As a fan, you’ve got to stick with your team through thick and thin. If you come-and-go depending on how the team’s doing, you’re nothing more than a bandwagon jumper. And bandwagon jumpers, by definition, can’t use “we.”
Rule #3 (“Kairam’s Theorem”): You can’t use “we” if you don’t claim your team’s baggage.
Poor managerial decisions, a historical record of achievement or lack thereof, and/or the evolution of a franchise’s identity are all things we must deal with as fans. Yankees fans need to accept that they’re disliked because they can overspend on free agents every year. Boston fans need to realize that the success of winning five championships in three sports over six years (and the obnoxiousness that naturally comes with it) is resented outside of New England. Notre Dame football fans have to relish their position as a “love them” or “hate them” team with no middle ground (also known as “Taylor’s Dilemma”). Just on the surface, if you can’t deal with these issues, then you most definitely can’t use “we.”
The possibility for debate on these issues shows just how important sports are for creating and supporting the notions of identity and connection to others. Before I came to HKS, it was an expectation that Sundays during the fall season would involve buffalo wings, Miller Lite, and my buddies cheering on the Eagles. Cheering for our team. With busy schedules, it was often the only time during the week that we would all hang out. And ultimately, those hours spent watching football together were more than just that; they were about creating our own community of “we.”
It’s with these same friends back in Philadelphia that I exchange endless text messages during and after games while trapped in the hell that is the Boston sports market. It also explains why I make a 45-minute trek to a Fenway-area bar every time an Eagles game is not televised in the Boston market. At the bar, I am always surrounded by other fellow Eagles fans. Our mutual support of the same team allows us to share a collective identity. If I’m on the T, I’m not going to speak to someone wearing a Red Sox or Mets hat, but if I happen to see a fellow Phillies fan, I’ll at least try to make eye contact and say “Go Phils.”
If after reading this article you realize you don’t meet the basic criteria for fandom, then just use “they” and you’ll be fine. But don’t be afraid to find a community of your own! The community of “we” is open to new members of all backgrounds, as long as you’re willing to put in the necessary work. You can’t claim to be a true fan without learning the ropes, but it can be done. All dyed-in-the-wool sports fans were once casual observers, so I encourage you to seek out your personal community of “we.” Just don’t come looking to join my community if you’re from New York or Boston…
Settle Down, My Friends…
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on October 27, 2009 in Opinion
As a self-proclaimed guru on all worldly matters whose influential bimonthly column is undoubtedly read by every student and faculty member, I feel it is now important for me, in the spirit of public service, to impart some advice that will improve your experience here at the Kennedy School.
Please, for the betterment not just of yourself but also for all of those around you, do not take this institution and your time here too seriously. Enjoy yourself, live loose, learn as much as you can, and have a good time, because the ride is almost over. The real world beckons, and we are painfully close to being back in it – for the next fifty years.
So I have a challenge to issue to the students of the Kennedy School. In class, many of you have criticized school systems and programs that ‘teach to the test.’ You claim that this does not properly educate our youth for the challenges that lay ahead and simply prepares them for an exam instead of instructing them to gain knowledge in a manner that can be applied in the real world.
In that spirit, I call on all Kennedy School students to stop ‘studying to the test.’ That’s right. Rather than spending your time studying what you believe will be tested to ensure a good grade, spend your time studying whatever it is you want to study. Maximize your personal growth, not your grade. Use your courses as a guide, not as a handbook to be executed. Focus on learning what it is you are interested in learning, not what someone else is trying to convince you is important.
This translates outside the classroom. It is a shame that so many accomplished individuals with incredible experiences come through this institution to speak and we do not have the time to hear from them. There are only so many hours in the day so there are inevitable tradeoffs, but you should always make your decisions based on logical reasoning.
Five years from now, will you remember solving problem set number six or hearing a speech given by a world leader? Will you get more value out of reading the eleventh case study of your course or going to lunch with three classmates who you may not know so well?
Five years from now, you will forget 75 percent of what you learned in the classroom, but your classmates will be engaged in an incredibly diverse array of activities all over the world. The relationships built now will last you a lifetime; knowledge can be fickle, and what you learn through a sense of compulsion rather than out of strong desire is likely to be the knowledge that is soon forgotten.
If you find yourself stressed, take a step back. We’re already at Harvard. Relax. The hardest part was getting in. Don’t worry if you don’t get a ticket to a Forum event. If it is that important to you, you can watch it online, in real-time or on-demand. If you are unwilling to do that, it is probably not that important to you!
If you don’t get the courses you bid for, I’m sure there are fifteen others that you would find fascinating to take. Don’t stress about summer jobs. Do you really lack the self-confidence that you will be able to find work after completing this degree?
Maintain your sense of humor – if you did not have one before enrolling, there is no better time to find one. Be sure to make fun of the moderator every time you hear the three rules while attending a Forum event. Consistently come up with new fourth rules you would like to hear; at the moment, I’m leaning toward the abolition of one through three or making the utterance of one through three a treasonous offense. By the way, did you know the Forum is one of the preeminent venues to speak at not just in Massachusetts or in the U.S. but also in the world? Just making sure you fully comprehended this….
Most of all, couple this experience with something you love. It will only make your time here more enjoyable and productive. If you like to play soccer, don’t substitute schoolwork for your time spent on the field. If you like to drink, then I would suggest you become a regular at a local bar. Your time spent here should be about you growing as a person and, most of all, enjoying yourself.
What you take away from here is up to you. For some, it may be little more than what you learn inside of the classroom and your requirements, which is a shame. Yet there is so much more to this institution, and to life. It’s now time to let your mind grow, and not in the sense of cramming for an exam. Please, don’t study to the test, study to live your life. It’s a lot more important…and enjoyable.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin on October 27, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The procurement of a nuclear bomb by Iran poses a threat to the continued existence of the State of Israel. The recent reports that Iran may be close to procuring nuclear arms have led the Israeli government to call the Iranian nuclear program an “existential threat.” A nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel in two ways.
First, Iran may carry out a direct nuclear attack on Israel. The Supreme Leaders of Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei — have made no secret of their desire to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad has said that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” while Khamenei has compared the State of Israel to a “cancer.” If Iran is allowed to procure nuclear arms, it will likely only be a matter of time before Iran uses those weapons against Israel. Iran already possesses the missile systems necessary to deliver such a nuclear attack.
Second, a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel given its capability to carry out an indirect attack by giving a nuclear bomb to one of its state-sponsored terrorist surrogates. Iran has connections to terrorist organizations that would allow it to easily deliver a covert nuclear attack on Israel. Iran has already sponsored Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in carrying out numerous terrorist attacks on Israel. These attacks have included suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aries. Furthermore, a nuclear Iran will give Iran’s terrorist allies a nuclear umbrella under which to operate, and will likely embolden these organizations to ratchet up their terrorist attacks against Israel, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
Consequently, the United States must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. The current administration’s use of dialog and engagement is unlikely to be effective. Diplomacy rarely works with dictators. The United States must instead wield a heavy hand to ensure the continued existence of the State of Israel.
Congress and the administration have pursued a path of economic sanctions, such as the newly- passed Iran Sanctions Enabling Act and the long-stalled Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. While these sanctions are a step in the right direction, President Obama must call for and broker stern economic sanctions supported by the entire international community (in particular from Russia and China) if sanctions are to have any meaningful impact. Although the recent agreement to ship low enriched Iranian uranium to Russia is a step in the right direction, it is only a temporary stopgap. Tehran can replace the 2,600 pounds of uranium that it is giving up in less than a year.
To ensure Israel’s safety, President Obama must provide a timeline for Tehran to give up its nuclear program in its entirety. At the same time, the President must convince Israel to forego any preemptive attack on Iran before Iran has the chance to begin dismantling its nuclear program.
If economic sanctions fail, then President Obama must tell Iran’s leaders that he supports a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran. In my conversation with Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, he articulated that President Obama has made a “terrible mistake in taking the military option off the table,” and that the President should “leave it up to Israel to determine its self defense.” By supporting a preemptive Israeli strike, President Obama will instill fear in Iran’s leaders over the possibility of war. Such a war would likely end with a regime change and the trial of the Iranian leaders, not in an international tribunal, but in an Israeli court of justice — much as did Adolf Eichmann in 1962. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out in 2006, “leaders, even religious leaders, fear imprisonment and death.”
The threat of a regime change in Iran, coupled with the fear of capital retribution, may be the only action that will make President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei give pause in their pursuit of aggression and terror towards Israel.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on October 27, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
President Obama recognizes the threat that a nuclear Iran poses. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made some dangerous comments regarding Israel and the Holocaust, and Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah is a threat to the safety of the Israeli people. But a nuclear Iran also puts the entire world in jeopardy. We stand against Iran’s nuclear program, both as an ally of Israel and as members of the world community.
There are glimmers of hope within Iran. As we saw this summer with the protests of the presidential elections, the political and religious leadership does not speak for all Iranian citizens. It is myopic to view Iran as a caricature within the Axis of Evil that Bush painted so dramatically just a few years ago.
As a nation, Iran is layered and complex, and the U.S. must reflect this complexity in its multi-faceted approach. Since his days as senator, the president has recommended that we do just that – take a comprehensive approach to Iran. The plans that President Obama has proposed for the past few years take an intelligent and strong approach to helping prevent the nuclear armament of Iran.
One key feature of Obama’s plan is diplomacy. Obama would not back away from his faith in the diplomatic process even under the enormous political pressures of the 2008 presidential election. Diplomacy is a strong tool for American foreign policy, and we should not take it off the table just because it may be politically expedient. Many Republicans agree with President Obama on this point, and they will even admit that when not trying to score political points – like McCain and Palin – by reiterating that diplomacy is dangerous.
Diplomacy can only work when it is conducted on the world stage. The United States will have little success unless it is able to build a united and coordinated plan with the cooperation of many parties, including the E.U., Russia, and China. China, in particular, is an important aspect to the diplomacy plan. China is a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and has growing economic and political interests in the region. China has also heavily invested in the Iranian oil industry. Without buy-in from China, the U.S. will not be able to succeed in its diplomatic tactics.
Diplomacy is also an important part of a larger plan that Obama has been emphasizing for years. He recommends “more than just tough talk.” As a senator, he sponsored legislation that takes a strong approach to Iran. His ideas include divestment from Iranian businesses and putting increased pressure on the Iranian oil trade.
Yet, oftentimes under economic sanctions, those who can afford it the least are those who suffer the most. Although we agree with President Obama that we need “bigger sticks and bigger carrots” in our approach to Iran, we need to ensure that we do not bring harm to the Iranian people. The nascent democracy movement spurred by the protests of this past summer are the exact actions that we should encourage within Iran. And we are afraid that poorly thought out sanctions may stifle such positive social movements.
We stand with President Obama and his multi-faceted approach to Iran. He is not using this issue to score political points. He knows that this decision is too important, and the idea of a nuclear Iran is too dangerous to withstand. Any approach to Iran will likely be difficult and drawn-out, and so will the domestic and international politics required to deal with the issue of a nuclear Iran. The United States must take a strong stand against this issue or endure an enhanced threat to global security. Under President Obama, we believe we will make that strong, balanced stand.
Lobbying While Muslim
by Jesse Lava, Opinions Columnist on October 27, 2009 in Heresies, Opinion
Christians and Jews should start raising hell about Muslims. And this time, it needs to be in Muslims’ defense.
Four congressional Republicans are demanding an investigation into whether the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to “infiltrate” the U.S. government by “planting spies” in congressional offices. These Republicans — Sue Myrick of North Carolina, Paul Broun of Georgia, and John Shadegg and Trent Franks of Arizona — claim that an internal CAIR memo reveals this insidious plot.
What does this smoking gun of a memo say, exactly? Behold: “We will focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community. (For example congressmen on the judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees.) We will develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and placing Muslim interns in congressional offices.”
Sweet Jesus. According to this memo, CAIR actually hopes to influence public policy on issues it cares about while securing internships for members of the community it represents! That’s sick, sick stuff. Or maybe it’s just democracy. Pick your poison.
What we have here is a rather contemptible display of anti-Muslim chauvinism masquerading as patriotism. An advocacy group is doing what advocacy groups do — you know, like, advocating and stuff — but because the group is Muslim, it’s getting tarred with accusations of espionage. Apparently, the very people who are most adamant about imposing democracy on Muslims abroad now find it intolerable to grant democracy to Muslims here at home.
Be that as it may, this moment presents a golden opportunity for Christian and Jewish leaders to speak out for the rights of American Muslims. No religious group should have to live in fear that simply participating in the democratic process will invite a federal investigation. And there’s no one better to make that case than leaders that come from religious groups that are more widely accepted.
Religious leaders understand the great moral credibility they wield. But they’ve largely been silent on the intimidation tactics now being used against CAIR. Major Christian and Jewish groups have issued no statements of support, written no indignant commentaries, and held no rebuttal press conferences. A few murmurings of support have been heard here and there — like when United Church of Christ blogger Chuck Currie asked for “an investigation into why voters sent such hateful souls to serve in Congress.” But such comments have been the exception, not the rule.
We shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for conservative Christians to leap to CAIR’s defense. When thousands of American Muslims were set to gather for prayer on Capitol Hill last month, Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins asked whether any of them would “affirm loyalty to the U.S. and our constitutional liberties” or, instead, “pray for shari’ah law to come to America.” I suspect Perkins would be none too pleased if evangelicals were asked such questions. But nevertheless, the Christian right has long made clear that it has little interest in protecting the rights of Muslim-Americans.
No, the hope for religious solidarity on this issue lies with America’s religious moderates and progressives. Numerous advocacy groups based in Washington, DC, represent this large swath of the faithful. It is incumbent on them, more than anyone, to speak up for Muslims — the most embattled and beleaguered religious group in America today — for the sake of religious freedom.
If nothing else, Christians and Jews may want to consider a paraphrase of the well-worn poem by German pastor and theologian Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the Muslims…”
