Posted on

Vaccine Inequality: Doing Our Fair Share

I was extremely excited to come to college to surround myself with those who love school and academic discussion as much as I do. I knew I was in the right place as I spent this entire week actively debating with friends which international relations (IR) theory best describes the world today: realism, liberalism, or constructivism. As I begin my second semester of college and immerse myself in my IR major, I find that I am not only learning new factual information but also how to think differently about contemporary events. I have been particularly impressed by how my IR studies enable me to see world events through a new lens, specifically the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

As I continue to think about COVID, my new IR-based framework has allowed me to approach issues from a global perspective. This pandemic provides a valuable case study for evaluating both national and multinational policies in the face of a worldwide threat. Specifically, in examining the response of the United States to COVID-19, it seems clear that the US has acted in many cases from a strictly nationalist, indeed even isolationist, perspective. This nationalist approach has not only endangered our own domestic political climate but also shortchanged other countries that depend on the United States for aid and leadership. Indeed, by taking a strictly nationalistic rather than a global approach to the COVID-19 threat, US leaders have limited our responses at home and contributed to the global perpetuation of this seemingly never ending pandemic. 

South Africa first discovered the Omicron variant on November 24, 2021. They were transparent about their scientific findings with the global community, rushing out the news of their research. Instead of applauding them for alerting the world and putting us in a position to proactively collaborate with them to contain the virus, the United States cut off travel to South Africa, essentially exacerbating the personal tolls of COVID with financial ones. 

However, this response of putting our country and citizens first is not unique to the United States, as is reflected by poor vaccine distribution worldwide. Malta Murthy, the World Bank’s Vice President for Human Development, stated, “The situation that we see right now is absolutely unacceptable, because a large part of the world remains unvaccinated and this is a danger for all of us.” Raka Banerjee, host of The Development Podcast from the World Bank Group, says that “1.1% of people living in low-income countries have received even one dose of a vaccine… 84% of all doses that have been administered so far have all gone to people in high and upper-middle-income countries. And in comparison, looking at the percentage of doses that have been administered in low-income countries, it’s a shockingly low 0.3%.” Given these alarming statistics, the real issue the international community should be focusing on is vaccine inequality, rather than first-world concerns over mask mandates and gym closures.

In developed countries like the United States, the surplus of good vaccines reflects a population of citizens who either are vaccinated and don’t need them or, for a sizable minority, don’t want them. The surplus of vaccine orders by developed countries creates a deficit in vaccines for underdeveloped countries, whose citizens are woefully undervaccinated. Data collected at Duke University shows that “the US paid for enough vaccines for twice its population, the UK paid for enough for four times its population, and Canada for five times its population.” We greatly overestimated the number of vaccines our population would need, and we haven’t effectively allocated leftover vaccines to countries that require them. “In the U.S. alone, there could be a vaccine surplus of over 1 billion doses by the end of 2021. With this surplus— and additional vaccine production for 2022— it would be quite feasible to achieve the goal set by the World Health Organization of vaccinating at least 40 percent of the population in every country.” That plan comes much closer to achieving more widespread vaccination than the planned G7 donation of 1 billion COVID vaccines, given that the World Health Organization estimates it will take around 11 billion COVID doses to vaccinate the world. The United States could play a critical global role in helping to organize and drive this donation of surplus vaccines to countries most in need of them.

President Biden’s foreign policy centers around repairing alliances and putting the United States back on the world stage as a global leader. To date, the Biden administration has exercised only limited leadership in directing a global COVID response; much of the effort has been focused on domestic recovery in face of the persistent pandemic. As we are just starting to see reports of a lessening hold of Omicron in the US, we urge the Biden administration to take this moment to broaden its efforts to focus on the global management of COVID. Hundreds of millions in lesser developed countries are in desperate need of increased support for COVID management, and by turning his attention to the global stage, Biden could recover some desperately needed momentum as a world leader.

Posted on

Grassroots Fights for Women’s Rights

On October 2, 2021, nearly 500 people gathered in Franklin Park in Boston, Massachussets, for the Boston Rally to Defend Abortion Rights. Organized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Massachusetts, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro Choice Massachusetts, and Planned Parenthood, this rally hosted people of all ages and genders—from babies in strollers and toddlers on shoulders to elderly men and women. The purpose of the rally was to inform people on the state of abortion legislation in this country and rally support for current bills and policies in the House and Senate. It also served to draw attention to the situation of voting laws in America and create outrage as part of a national movement to defend abortion rights and curb right-wing legislators enacting laws such as the abortion ban in Texas.

October 2, 2021.

The six-year-old daughter of one of the rally’s organizers kicked off the pro-choice event, stating to accompanying cheers that “If men should have control over their own body, women should too.” Congresspeople and activists introduced active legislation, such as the Roe Act and the Women’s Health Protection Act. Among others, Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley, Senator Ed Markey, and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey spoke. Speakers advocated for comprehensive sexual education, shared personal experiences with abortions, and championed the Voting Rights Act. Others simply drew attention to the life or death situation that has become abortion rights in America—all to cheering from the animated crowd. 

Keeping with other pro-choice rallies across the country on October 2, 2021, the purpose of this event was to draw attention to the democratic crisis in our country—a crisis exemplified by very severe restrictions to abortion Americans are seeing in their states, most notably Texas, whose legislature has recently passed a law which bans abortions at about six weeks from the patient’s last menstrual period, before most women even know they are pregnant. In light of these restrictive laws, each speaker ended their remarks with a call to action, asking attendees to reach out to their representatives and advocate for the Women’s Health Protection Act, the Roe Act, and the Voting Rights Act—to sign petitions, call representatives, and vote on legislation and for legislators who will keep access to abortion legal in America. For younger attendees not yet able to vote, the rallies serve as an education on what democracy looks like as well as the specific voting agenda they are likely to face. The Boston Rally for Abortion Rights event ended with a march through Franklin Park, with organizers leading chants and waving signs as a crowd of around 500 pro-choice Americans marched into Boston to voice their opinion before the Supreme Court goes into session on Monday, potentially jeopardizing Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that affirmed that access to legal, safe abortion is a constitutional right. 

July 4, 1776.

The statistics indicate that a majority of Americans support access to first-trimester abortion; yet, the politics reflect that this opinion is not being represented in policy. A variety of political maneuvering including gerrymandering and voter suppression laws is what is perverting this expression of majority opinion. On a larger scale, the Boston rally reflects an ongoing battle in America between majoritarian and pluralistic democracy. Majoritarian democracy—the idea that whichever group gains the majority of the vote wins—has been perverted into a system that allows for minority rule. In America, around 60% of Americans support first-trimester abortions. Even in Texas, where some support the ban, 56% of pro-life Texans support abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother—exceptions not permitted under the current law. Despite these public opinions, the Texas government has passed a law that virtually outlaws all abortion, and states like South Carolina and Mississippi are considering similar legislation. Our democratic system has become distorted in that the minority is not only influencing policy but has taken control of the legislative agenda. In the case of abortion rights, this seizure of control has become a life or death issue for many low-income women seeking now-illegal abortions. 

Additionally, America clearly sees influences of pluralistic democracy, the idea that every voice and opinion gets a seat at the table, through the public voice of interest groups such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. While the influence of minority rule is clearly being seen at the federal level, particularly within the Senate, interest groups are fighting back, pushing for legislative reform that reflects the opinions and views of the majority. Funding plays a huge role in a pluralistic democracy; as seen with interest groups like the NRA, whose powerful lobby has kept gun control at bay, whoever has the most money generally has the most influence on policy and the federal government’s agenda. Through money and political manipulation, the form of pluralistic democracy is also being somewhat corrupted; money behind the scenes is giving some groups more advantage than others, leaving an unfair playing field. While the Boston Rally to Defend Abortion Rights was not a fundraiser per se, organizers capitalized on the rally’s momentum to advocate for donations to abortion clinics in Texas, so doctors can pay to send their patients out of state to obtain an abortion.

Through protests, petitions, the internet and the press, many voices have a chance to be heard on this issue. These rallies serve to empower the individual and encourage them to vote as a bloc in favor of the interests groups’ goals. In this case, the organizers used this rally to magnify interest in securing and defending abortion rights and the power of the vote, ultimately to support the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021. This law would finally codify the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade, and this rally is especially timely as the Supreme Court is beginning their October term, and Republicans are aggressively advocating to overturn Roe. In Massachusetts specifically, legislators present thanked the crowd for their support in and voting on The Roe Act, “An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access.” Finally, as the United States continues to watch the battle between majority and minority rule develop over abortion policy and the Women’s Health Protection Act and other civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 2021, the act of voting will become more important than ever. 

Posted on

Environmental Justice for All

The world was shocked in 1962 when Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring, announcing how birds are no longer singing in the sky due to toxic pesticides. Carson called attention to the need for people to be aware of what we are doing to our environment and launched what would come to be known as the modern environmental movement. 

What was left out of the narrative was the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on certain communities, particularly minority communities. This effect has been termed environmental racism. Environmental racism refers not only to the increased risk of damage minority communities face during natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, but also to the health impacts they face as a result. In a review of 20 years of data, The National Conference for Community and Justice notes that “more than half of the people who live within 1.86 miles of toxic waste facilities in the United States are people of color,” putting them at increased risk of developing headaches, difficulty breathing, irritated skin and eyes, and other illnesses. EPA data shows black children have double the rates of asthma and heart disease compared to white children, and individuals living in minority communities are at much higher risk for disease, a point that was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

These alarming trends have brought about a call for environmental justice, a term describing the need for equality in execution and enforcement of environmental regulations and policies. Dr. Robert Bullard, also known as the “Father of Environmental Justice,” has devoted his career to raising awareness of bringing to the spotlight this narrative. He has focused specifically on how minority communities, mainly communities of color, are disadvantaged in terms of health and overall well-being by the location of affordable housing. Dr. Bullard notes, “America is segregated and so is pollution. . . .Today, zip code is still the most potent predictor of an individual’s health and well-being.” Already the victims of historical and continued systemic racism, such as underinvestment in neighborhood schools and limited access to nearby stores selling healthy foods, minority communities sustained added damage through the close proximity to environmental pollutants and toxic waste facilities, due to historical policies of redlining. 

To address these concerns, in February 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898. The goal of this Executive Order was to “focus federal attention on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities.” Executive Order 12898 has been in place for 27 years. Despite this action, the crisis of environmental justice has never been more pronounced.

Fortunately, we are starting to take meaningful steps to address both the environmental crisis and associated environmental racism. President Joe Biden promised equal laws and policies that would root out systemic racism, including environmental racism, during his Presidential campaign. Biden promised to establish an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice. Already, President Biden passed an Executive Order that establishes an interagency council on environmental justice within the White House, creates an office at the Health and Services Department for health and climate equity, and follows through with his promise, forming an environmental justice office within the Department of Justice. In addition, the Biden Administration has made a promise to return to science and fact when dealing with all issues concerning the environment, from social issues like environmental justice to the existential threat of climate change. 

The efficacy of these steps remains to be seen as our country wrestles with extreme partisanship and climate change denial. National organizations, like Greenaction, operate as a part of what is known as the environmental justice movement. These organizations work with communities one-on-one on a local level and offer solutions that function outside of the highly partisan national discourse. Specific cities are also making environmental justice a priority. As of 2019, New York City, San Francisco, and Fulton County, Georgia have all enacted concrete environmental justice policies. San Francisco, a city known for its priority for green space and parks, has earned more than $12 million in grant money since the policy was enacted in 2000. Given the magnitude of the challenges presented by the issues of environmental racism, a combination of local and federal efforts are required to create lasting policy that creates meaningful change in affected communities. 

Posted on

And the Winner Is…

https://www.ipp-journal.org/blog/and-the-winner-is

Check out my post discussing the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize winner and the correlation between conflict and hunger in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Public Policy!

Posted on

Indisputably Essential

According to Miriam Webster’s Dictionary, the definition of essential is “of the utmost importance: basic, indispensable, necessary.” Three months ago, I thought going to the movies was essential. Going to the mall seemed essential. My weekends away from schoolwork were essential. The experience of being quarantined has made me realize it wasn’t the movie release that was so necessary, and it wasn’t the shoes I wanted at the mall that were essential. What was essential was spending time with my friends. It was time with my family on vacation experiencing new adventures together outside of our house. The coronavirus has forced us all to reconsider what is really “essential.” 

While it is for the good of our local community and the world that we stay quarantined to stop this virus from spreading, it is important to consider the effect on our civil liberties. It is now against the law to gather in large groups in public spaces. More than 200 million people across America are under stay-in-place orders. Our lives have been turned upside down to accommodate this new normal. We sit on our couches watching the progression of disease even as new public health ordinances are rolled out, crossing off the list more and more places we can’t go to do what used to be our normal daily activities. As we reflect on these compromises for the good of our neighbors and our friends, we should give careful thought to which of those activities cannot be compromised. And perhaps our local and federal officials can do the same.  Clearly food services should make the cut. Medical facilities should make the cut. But what about gun stores? What about churches? 

 Gun owners argue that they “want to protect their family in case things go the other way” (NPR). While this argument may have some validity during pre-COVID times, the idea that a gun will protect you from an airborne virus is not only illogical, but it is also ignorant and misleading. Since the outbreak, gun and ammunition sales have dramatically increased with panic driven purchases, with advocates using the second amendment as justification. The right to bear arms is not the right to buy arms. 

According to National Public Radio (NPR), the Los Angeles County sheriff has ordered gun shops in the county to close twice now. The decision of whether to leave gun shops open is determined by county, not state, officials, leading to a variety of decisions all over the country. Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Rifle Association are working with the Trump administration to “make sure firearm manufacturers do not experience a disruption during the pandemic” (NPR). While some make the argument that if gun stores close, a pandemic-inspired growing panic to purchase firearms may lead to a backlog in the background checks system and a new population of uneducated, untrained gun owners, this doomsday forecast has not come to be. Drug arrests in Chicago have dropped 42% in the last few weeks since the city shut down. The rate of key crimes in Los Angeles has dropped 30% since March 15. In New York City, one of the hardest hit epicenters of coronavirus, crime has decreased by  double digits. While outside crime has been decreasing, the rate of domestic violence, however, has been skyrocketing (Forbes). Purchasing a gun counters every public health official’s orders to stay at home. While living during a time where each day is a new unknown provokes fear and uncertainty, purchasing a gun will not stop this pandemic and may raise the level of danger in domestic violence exponentially. Guns are not an essential business. And why should our government protect the firearm industry when the rest of the nation is struggling to put food on the table.  The New York Times reports that in the last 3 weeks more than 16 million Americans have been put out of work. Where’s the relief for them?

Amidst debates about firearm stores being essential businesses, new debates have arisen regarding churches, synagogues, and mosques. In Kansas, legislation dictates that people stay at home, except “going to church, buying or selling guns or running a childcare center” (US News). We all understand it’s difficult to have your life interrupted for a virus. We all understand what it’s like to miss activities you used to do. But what has always been essential for some (spiritual life) may be done differently for the greater good. A virtual spiritual community has the potential to offer religious support, education, and community while still saving lives. Both are essential.

Within the last month, our cities, counties, states, and nations have had to debate what we consider essential. We need to urge each other to stay home, to connect virtually, and to go out only for truly essential reasons. We need to urge our elected officials, particularly as the presidential election approaches, to continue to ask these same questions and to make difficult decisions that are nonpartisan and focused on our health and safety.  All of our lives may depend on it.

Posted on

My House made of Paper Products

What teenager’s life isn’t busy? I’m a planner, and I had something on my calendar for every weekend through the end of semester. I had academic plans, with study schedules timed out for the AP exams in the spring. I had travel plans to look at colleges and see family. I had dances to go to – especially prom. I had tennis practice, and music rehearsal, and so much more. And then, like everyone, I had to rethink my days and my plans. I had to rethink my life in terms of my friends, my community, and my world. 

The coronavirus pandemic has changed everything.  As a student of current events, I did take notice of the illness outbreak in China. But it was a small note, lost in election primaries and presidential gaffes. It was a big stretch to imagine an illness affecting people in China could move so far, so fast, and kill so many. And then last week, it was here.  “Mom, everything’s cancelled. It’s here.”

Never in my life have there been so many unknowns.  I haven’t left my house in almost a week. I’ve started a series on my Tik Tok social media platform called “pandemic hobbies.” I’m putting on “concerts” in my living room for my family so they can see the product of my hours of hard violin practice, and I’ve taken to learning to homeschool myself because my district is still trying to figure out “distance learning.” Last week I was preparing to go to Chicago to compete at Nationals with my school’s honors string orchestra. Now I’m wondering if it’s safe to go to Target to grocery shop, and my dad has stored an arsenal of paper products. My mom, a doctor, still takes care of patients but the specter of many patients looms large. And things couldn’t be more different for the rest of my family and my friends. Who even heard of social distancing? The more articles I read, the more real it gets. How much longer will this go on? How am I supposed to prepare for my AP exams with no teacher? Will there be an AP exam setting for me to take the test? How is this going to affect my chances for getting into college? My mind is overwhelmed with questions to which no one has the answers. 

I remember my freshman year of high school, when the Thomas Fire swept through Ventura County, igniting the hills behind my home like a massive bonfire. I remember being off of school for five weeks while my friends gathered together their lives from the ashes left from the fire. I remember feeling sorry for my older brother, a junior at the time, because he still had to take AP exams. I sit here now quarantined in my home basking in the irony. But this time it’s not just me. It’s not just my school. It’s not just my county. It’s the whole world. When I think of it this way, I realize what a great responsibility the young people in the world have. The least affected statistically, young people, myself included, may tend to brush off social distancing as a nuisance and think that we can still meet in groups to keep us on track with our studying or just to have fun. After all, eighty percent of people infected by coronavirus have mild disease. But the world is resting on our shoulders. My decision to meet with a group of friends for a movie night could mean inadvertently spreading this disease, and not only no more school for the rest of the year, but also filling our hospitals to their capacity in a number of days. As each day progresses, new information comes out that makes this virus closer and closer to home, and each day, precautions become more and more intense. 

During times of tragedy people tend to come together. Before high school, I had never really experienced the effects of a tight knit community supporting each other. Then the Thomas fire happened in my town, and I watched strangers rally together to help those in need.  We contributed to GoFundMe fundraisers, bought clothes and gift cards, and copied math homework. Now I watch the world come together from my living room as schools work to provide online learning and even food for their students, as friends reach out to others through FaceTime to make sure no one is isolated, and as governments make tough decisions to assure the safety of their citizens. Never before have I experienced a circumstance such as this one. And never have I seen our world closer together, even though we’re all six feet apart.