H\mh[^k�+)*)�����������ammi3((lmn]^gmhk`l'ng\'^]n(ma^abee���������Ohenf^�Q%�Blln^�B

PaZm�bm�bl�Zg]�b_�bm�l�\hfbg`�

hnk�pZr

PaZm�bm�f^Zgl�_hk�ma^�G'<'�>]n\Zmbhg�Lrlm^f

Pa^k^�l�ma^�k^lihgl^8

!e Middle East has always been a focal point in interna-tional politics. However, given the region’s extreme importance in the realm of foreign policy, it may be all the more necessary to scrutinize the area more care-fully, especially amidst changing power dynamics. Traditional atti-tudes towards states in the region are being challenged as the U.S. seeks to reassess the viability and nature of long-held alliances. Following U.S. withdrawal, Iraq faces an uncertain future in the aftermath of American with-drawal (pg 14). And amidst new e"orts at Israel-Palestine peace talks, we examine some key play-ers among the Middle Eastern leadership (pg .15).

In the domestic sphere, the issue of illegal immigration remains unresolved and continues to gar-ner attention, especially follow-ing the passage of highly contro-versial legislation in Arizona (pg. 7). Concerns about the economy still linger as legislators respond to public anger with #nancial reform and experts ponder the potential consequences of a double-dip recession (pg. 8, 9). Also, have a look at our article on shifting political trends in the arena of gay rights. !ank you for reading !e Hill. We hope you enjoy this issue and we look to forward to another great year.Siddarth Nagaraj is a junior majoring in global studies and political science.

?khf�ma^�>]bmhk Ma^�Abee�LmZ__

We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or e-mail - no more than 250 words, please. Include your name, year and major.

Our Mission: !e Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international politics. !is publica-tion is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not a$liated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of !e Hill is to provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends. !is means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. !ese articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, !e Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

To our readers:

>=BMHKL<Zkhebg^�@n^kkZ<eZrmhg�MahfZl

F:G:@BG@�>=BMHKMZmbZgZ�;k^sbgZLb]]Zkma�GZ`ZkZc

:LLH<B:M>�>=BMHKL�RZla�LaZa

PKBM>KL<Zk^r�:o^k[hhd

C^ll^�;^ZfMZmbZgZ�;k^sbgZKrZg�<heebglEn\r�>f^klhg<hkmg^r�>oZgl

:fZg]Z�<eZbk^�@kZrlhgGb\he^�Chaglhg

:e^q�Chg^lD^eer�D^lle^kDkblagZ�Dheen

KZ]abdZ�DlaZmkbrZ:Zkhg�EnmdhpbmsLb]]Zkma�GZ`ZkZc

>oZg�GheeBlfZZbe�JZbrbf

<akblmbZg�Kh]kbjn^sPbelhg�LZrk^RZla�LaZa

Lm^iaZgb^�La^gb`hLZkZa�P^gms

P>;�>=BMHKLZkZa�P^gms

A>:=�H?�=>LB@GGb\he^�?kb^l

=>LB@G>oZg�Ghee

GZmZlaZ�Lfbma

A>:=�H?�:KMF^`Zg�LaZgd

:KMCK�?knmh

<BK<NE:MBHG:fZg]Z�<eZbk^�@kZrlhg

Pbelhg�LZrk^

MK>:LNK>KD^g]Zee�EZp

?:<NEMR�:=OBL>K?^kk^e�@nbeehkr

<hgm^gml<ho^k?^Zmnk^l

0

*)

!e Changing Face of the Middle EastPolicy change among traditional American allies

Losing Lives and SupportPakistan struggles against %oods without aid of international community

Breaking Free at Last?Change in sexual orientation policy

A Shadowy CrescentU.S. confronts Islamophobia debate over Ground Zero Mosque

*/

*+

�[r�I^m^k�;^bgZkmIn 2002, Peter Beinart, then the editor of !e New Republic, #ercely beat the drums for war in Iraq. Like many liberal hawks, Beinart has spent the last seven years doing pen-ance for his poor judgment. Out of that period of self-re%ection comes his new book, !e Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, in which he examines the 20th century leaders and thinkers who, like him-self, allowed overcon#dence to pull them into disastrous wars. Beinart explains how America’s mission to spread freedom around the globe leads the nation to take risks that a humbler power would avoid. Periods of hubris tend to originate in epochs of prosperity and political reform at home. Suc-cess builds on success; elites consider exporting America’s model and a few brilliant ideologues emerge with a scheme to recon#gure the world in America’s gleaming image. But, America’s hubris and ignorance of foreign lands always derail the plan. As the next generation comes of age, America turns inward to examine how the nation failed. While Beinart touches on most 20th century foreign policy, the book focuses on WWI, Vietnam and Iraq. In each case, politicians and for-eign policy intellectuals—often mo-tivated by generational envy—mobi-lized the nation to project might in

the service of democracy. Arrogant and unconcerned with the lessons of previous failures, they stumbled into unnecessary wars, killed millions and damaged America’s stature as a world power. Beinart handles this land-scape well. He wisely speeds through familiar events and thoroughly ex-plains the contexts of his case stud-ies. His description of the interwar period is engrossing, illuminating how Germany played America and Britain o" France and rearmed while the West slept. Like all good docu-mentarians, Beinart has a nose for the perfect illustrative anecdote. His book is a history of individuals and contains fascinating character sketches: Randolph Bourne, the de-formed, embittered man who vivi-sected the case for entry in the Great War; Henry Kissinger, a dark genius whose college thesis declared, “Life is su"ering. Birth involves death.” In one passage, Beinart describes “!e Inquiry.” !is grand project brought together hundreds of intellectuals to determine the national borders and political systems of the entire world. !e 10,000 pages of charts and memos from that enterprise could be a metaphor for the hubristic ra-tionalism of the Progressive Era. Ironically, !e Icarus Syn-drome’s greatest %aw comes in Bein-art’s own attempt to systematize a

vast and complicated reality. !e narrative of hubris-correction cycles requires him to ignore nuances that would qualify his message. Harry Truman spent irresponsibly on the military and incompetently managed the Korean War. To paint Eisen-hower as a mere corrective, however, ignores his casual threats of nuclear war and warmongering Secretary of State, John Dulles. !e book’s focus on the wisdom of restraint leads to many regrettable simpli#cations. Figures who #t his prudent ideal are sometimes uncritically praised, while idealists are dismissed as dreamy fools. Beinart’s analysis is shrewd, but this reviewer wonders whether the book might have been better without the theorizing. To Beinart’s credit, !e Ica-rus Syndrome does not conclude with a manifesto. From his experi-ence and his research, he under-stands the danger of con#dently promoting a vision for organizing the world. America can learn from this lesson too.

Alex Jones is a sophomore majoring in history.

<n[Z�MkZo^e�;Zg�Ng]^k�L\knmbgr

Abee&H&F^m^k

Since 1960, the United States has en-forced a trade embargo with Cuba known as the Cuba Democracy Act. Fifty years later, the embargo’s goals have not been ful#lled: the communist regime still holds power on the island. !is has led to increasing discussion over the policy, which culminated in Febru-ary when Representative Collin Peter-son introduced a bill that would lift the travel ban with Cuba. Since then, debate has raged in Congress and the White House over the embargo’s e"ectiveness and whether or not it should be lifted. As Congress and the President deliber-ate on this decision, it appears that the ones least represented on the issue are those who have been most impacted by it: Cuban-American citizens. Although most Cuban-Amer-icans have supported the embargo in protest of the communist regime in Cuba, it has prevented them from visit-

ing their homeland and seeing relatives who still live there. Obdulio Piedra is a citizen who lives in Miami, Florida and is highly connected in South Florida’s large Cuban-Ameri-can community. When asked about how Cuban-Americans felt on the issue, Mr. Piedra responded that in general “!e community opinion [has] slowly been changing and [has] become more toler-ant to lifting the travel ban and easing the embargo.” Mr. Piedra also added that al-lowing Americans to travel to Cuba could help topple the communist re-gime by giving Cubans exposure to the outside world. However, he noted that many of the resources the embargo pre-vents from reaching Cuba the repressive government would itself determine how to distribute should other aspects of the embargo be lifted. While much of the embargo’s

policies merit debate, it remains clear many Cuban-Americans believe the travel ban should be lifted. Dozens of others who were interviewed said that while they supported the principles of the embargo, they wished to be able to visit the land of their birth and the many relatives they left behind. !ey do not contest that pro#t American tourism would bring to the island would likely be absorbed by the Cuban government, but hope that witnessing an aspect of American society could give them the courage to e"ect change. As Congress brings the issue to a vote this Septem-ber, many Cuban-Americans hope their wishes will be brought into consider-ation.

Christian Rodriguez is a !rst-year major-ing in political science.

!e economy. Economist Robert Gordon predicts that the next years will see the slowest economic growth in US history. !e only solution now may be technological innovation. Maybe Google can mass-produce time machines and transport recent college graduates back to the 1990’s technology boom....

Rahm Emanuel has decided to leave the White House. With luck, we may never have to hear the phrase “Chicago-style politician” again.

Conservatism. With Bill Buckley long gone and Christine O’Donnellthe face of the GOP, conservatives stand athwart history screamingincoherently.

!e White House economic teamhas seen signi#cant personnel shiftsin the last few weeks. Judging by the volume of Beltway gossip, these changes will reignite the economy, bring peace to Afghanistan, and stop the %ood of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Or give Maureen Dowd material to write about, or something.

Although President Obama ar-ticulated that immigration reform would be one of his top priorities af-ter taking o$ce, many are still wait-ing for results. Nonetheless, stricter immigration enforcement policies, coupled with fewer job opportuni-ties due to the Great Recession, have led to a decrease in the number of undocumented immigrants remain-ing in the United States. !e most recent study performed by the Pew Hispanic Center states that the number of undocumented immi-grants dropped from 12 to 11.1 mil-lion from 2007 to 2009. However, the issue of appropriate policy to-wards the remaining 11 million im-migrants remains controversial. E"orts to target illegal immigration have increased, even without ma-jor legislative reform. Hiring tactics have been more heavily scrutinized as investigations of employers who hire illegal immigrants have in-creased drastically over the past two years. Employers who hire illegal immigrants have been charged with #nes and even imprisonment.

Arizona’s passage of the one of the strictest immigration measures, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, insti-gated great controversy by includ-ing such regulations as making it a misdemeanor if an immigrant does not carry his or her documents at all times. Democrats, most notably President Obama, have openly criti-cized the legislation because of its potential violation of the rights of legal residents. A federal judge even-tually blocked the state from enforc-ing the most controversial aspects of

the law; however, until federal action is taken, some states believe that they need to take matters into their own hands. According to CBS News, while “eighteen localities around the country are refusing to do business with Arizona because of the law, twenty- two states are considering similar legislation.” Border security has long been an is-sue, and recently both parties came together in passing the $600 mil-

lion Border Security Bill without much struggle. However, as seen in the past, a tighter border will not necessarily solve the United States’ immigration problems. In an inter-view with !e Hill, Niklaus Steiner, immigration specialist and director of UNC’s Center for Global Initia-tives, stated that “Border security alone will do little… solid research by scholars like Doug Massey sug-gests that increased security has counter-intuitively increased illegal immigration because it has broken the pattern of circular migration…Increased security might only be

e"ective in a much broader context such as reducing farm subsidies, cur-tailing the drug trade, slowing arms exports, and #ghting corruption in order to fundamentally reshape and improve the economic and political situation in sending countries.” !e recent Pew Hispanic Center report illustrated that most of the reduc-tions among undocumented im-migrants re%ected migration from Latin American countries other than Mexico and that the number of undocumented Mexican immigrants living in the United States did not change signi#cantly. !erefore, even with increased security and patrols, the United States will still be left with a major problem.As the economic situation of the United States ameliorates, job avail-ability will also improve, which may attract new immigrants to seek work. However, even if the govern-ment #nds a method to reverse the %ow of undocumented immigrants to leave the United States, there is still the issue of the 11 million im-migrants that remain. In North Car-olina alone, although the number of undocumented immigrants has dropped by over 100,000 since 2006, over 250,000 remain. Steiner states that “Amnesty, legalization, regular-ization - whatever you want to call it - is the only feasible way to deal with this issue because massive deporta-tion is neither #nancially, practically or morally acceptable. !is might be a classic case of something being the least worst option.”

Without major political reform, the immigration problem will not be solved as there are too many forces compounding the problem.

!e discourse regarding equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-genders and other sexual identities is by no means recent. !ere has been debate for years, but there seems to have been an increase in discussion lately. With respective rulings by the California Supreme Court and a California federal district court that Proposition 8 and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are unconstitutional, equal rights for all sexual orientations seems to be more possible than it did mere months ago. Additionally, the recent unsuccessful Defense Bill contained a provision for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

!ese developments suggest sup-port for equal rights, but it may be too soon to tell as both rulings can be appealed and the latter cannot be applied nationally. Additionally,

the defeat of the Defense Bill via a nearly defeated #libuster casts doubt upon whether similar legislation will be voted upon in Congress soon.Although some of the 43 votes against ending the #libuster resulted from support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, opposition to the bill stemmed from other sources as well, including a provision to permit abortions on military bases. Still others opposed the DREAM Act, an addendum that would have allowed those who illegally came to the U.S. at least #ve years ago prior to the age of 16 to obtain citizenship provided they met certain criteria. If the vote had been simply on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the outcome may have been di"erent. After Proposition 8 was ruled un-constitutional by the California Supreme Court in August, legal analysts began questioning the legal standing of Protect Marriage, one of the largest supporters of Proposition 8, to #le an appeal. In a statement to !e Hill, UNC School of Law Pro-fessor Michael Gerhardt explained that legal standing is a require-ment of the Constitution, and par-ties must be able to prove they have an actual injury. “And the Supreme Court,” Gerhardt clari#ed, “has said a psychic or ideological harm is not an actual injury that would satisfy the requirement for legal standing.” Gerhardt’s colleague, School of Law Professor Derek Black, agrees, stat-ing that Protect Marriage’s rights regarding marriage are not being violated and that ideological objec-tion to a law “does not amount to standing.”

In response to criticism, Protect Marriage has claimed that the state government was obliged to enforce Proposition 8. Both the Gover-nor and Attorney General report-edly agree with the decision, and a court ruling supports their choice to not defend the law through appeal. With the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal scheduled to hear oral ar-guments in December, supporters of Proposition 8 must #nd someone to defend their case soon, or the case may be thrown out for lack of legal standing.

!e signi#cance of the federal dis-trict court ruling regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is its application to state law. As Gerhardt explains, “A state supreme court may not over-turn or interfere with a ruling of a federal district court.” To put it sim-ply, California law now recognizes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as unconstitu-tional, and this cannot be overturned without a U.S. Supreme Court rul-ing or federal legislation.

Although the inability to #nd a par-ty with legal standing to argue for Proposition 8 in California is bene#-cial for advocates of equal rights for all sexual orientations, the inability to defend the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell bill will hurt the #ght in Washing-ton. So while it seems that the end of legislation forbidding same-sex marriage may have come in Califor-nia, it appears that the long awaited repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may require a longer wait yet.

Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.

Continued from previous page:!e number of undocumented im-migrants has decreased, but current practices will not allow for 11 mil-lion people to suddenly leave. !e United States must also consider the di"erent situations of immigrants from high school students who have lived in the country their whole lives to newly arrived adult factory work-ers. !e immigration dilemma is one that has needed to be addressed properly for years and will have a drastic impact on our society if left unresolved.

Lucy Emerson is a junior majoring in economics and political science

Following the 2008 meltdown of the U.S. #nancial industry, there has been heated debate concerning the role of government regulation in protecting against future crises. In particular, many Democratic leaders in Congress claimed that the un-checked proliferation of mortgage-backed securities could have been monitored if not for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Furthermore, as the #nancial crisis precipitated into the `Great Recession,’ voters ex-pressed frustration about the inabil-ity of Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to alleviate the economic impact of the crisis. Given upcoming midterm elections, recent regulatory legislation of Wall Street raises the question of how voters will view the economy in relation to the political parties. A perhaps more signi#cant question also poses itself: is this reform su$cient to solve the fundamental problems in the #nan-cial industry?

In the years preceding the recent crisis, #nancial institutions found themselves exposed to risk as the housing sector weakened. However, #nancial markets were unable to re%ect this uncertainty in the pric-ing of securities. Although default rates on sub-prime and adjustable rate mortgages were on the rise by 2006, most major stock indexes ex-perienced record highs even in 2007. !e crisis materialized when the industry realized that assets linked to these mortgages were overvalued and #nancial institutions frantically attempted to de-leverage their lia-bilities. At the same time, the gener-al public scrambled to increase their own cash holdings, which fueled the

concern over `bank runs.’

!e #nancial crisis was head-lined by the breakdown of ma-jor #nancial institutions such as Lehman Brothers and AIG. Although it is unclear what the market knew about the viabil-ity of these institutions before the collapse, this information asymmetry demonstrates the principal-agent problem inher-ent to the industry. In particu-lar, the general public, which essentially lends to #nancial institutions via household sav-ings, is faced with uncertainty about how their funds will be used. Spe-ci#cally, this becomes problematic if institutions have behavioral in-centives that contradict the savings and investment goals of the public. Hence, #nancial regulation focuses on the objective of minimizing this issue of moral hazard by holding in-stitutions accountable to the inter-ests of their clients.

!e recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act establishes expansive oversight powers, requires #nancial institu-tions to meet accountability and transparency standards and sets spe-ci#c regulations for a vast range of operations. Since the legislation was passed in July, there is only specula-tion as to its e"ectiveness in stabi-lizing the #nancial industry. While most polling has shown that the public believes reform is necessary, this has not necessarily translated into support for the way in which Democrats and President Obama have handled the situation. In an in-terview with !e Hill, Mahesh Pan-dya, an economic policy analyst for

the Brookings Institution, suggested that the prevailing attitude amongst voters about the economy will pre-vent the Democrats from deriving any political capital from #nancial reform. Furthermore, he argues that the primary political signi#cance of the regulatory legislation will be the oversight powers that it creates for the executive branch.

While it will be years before data is available to evaluate the impact of reform, there is already concern about #nancial innovation. Charles Calomiris, professor at Columbia Business School, writes that al-though regulators attempt to antici-pate new techniques in the #nancial industry, they are generally unable to keep up with the pace of innovation in investment products. Despite this, the recent legislation does establish structural protections for consum-ers and a more dynamic regulatory agency. Overall, although concern over a double dip is fading, the dy-namic between #nancial institutions and regulators is just developing.

Yash Shah is a senior majoring in eco-nomics and political science.

For the #rst decade of this new mil-lennium, “W” was a political symbol that spurred strong responses based on one’s support or opposition to our 43rd president. For the second decade, “W” could be an economic model that re%ects an international double-dip recession, or so many economists fear. !e 2008 “Great Recession” promptly reversed the rapid yet unstable growth of Ameri-ca’s economy over the past few years. Recently, however, the economic losses have slowed as employment numbers look healthier and con-sumption has started to resume. Many hope that these indicators are the beginning of a recovery, but others with more caution and pessi-mism worry that a double-dip reces-sion (a slide back into negative GDP growth) could happen. So which will occur? First, it is wise to examine the eco-nomic factors that have caused fears of GDP falling in the red once more. While the recession spread from the United States to the rest of the world, now the international econ-omy looks too shaky to carry long-term growth. Greece’s #scal crisis seems to have spread to the #nan-

cial PIGS – Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain – of Europe. Germany, the economic engine of Europe, has had to carry the tremendous burden of supplying most of the $1 trillion bailout for the European Union. Europe is a primary consuming re-gion of the United States’ exports. Domestically, we’re facing our own stimulus woes. Despite spending billions of dollars to spur economic growth, many economists, ranging from New York Times author Paul Krugman to Professor Ralph Byrns of the UNC Department of Eco-nomics, have argued that not enough was done. Byrns commented that we face a “stagnant period” because policymakers focused on “balanc-ing the budget instead of balancing the economy.” American economic sectors, like the housing market, ar-guably the sector that foretold the recession, still have not bounced back and re%ect a lack of #nancial support. Home equity loans, com-monly used to stimulate household consumption, remain weak, and this will continue to decrease individual consumption, a crucial aspect of America’s economic strength. !ese factors and more explain why many consider recent economic gains as ephemeral and concealing a much darker truth. But perhaps that economic inter-pretation is too narrowly-focused; there are many longer-lasting rea-sons why global economic strength has returned. While Europe’s woes have reduced their economic capac-ity, China’s rapid double-digit GPD percentage growth has far exceeded expectations. More importantly, a consumer-prone middle class breaking through in China suggests that they can consume and produce

enough goods to satisfy a slowly-recovering American economy. Our trade de#cit has declined from $48.2 billion to $42.8 billion in July 2010 alone, a good indicator that America is consuming less in the past and selling more – not only to countries with large consumer bases (such as China) but to other smaller develop-ing economies as well. !e recession began because of structural prob-lems, namely that individuals con-sumed too much and accumulated too much debt. !erefore, indicators like the trade de#cit are extremely important in examining the pos-sibility of a double-dip recession. If positive and healthy structural shifts are occurring, a double-dip reces-sion becomes increasingly unlikely. Prominent #gures in the business world like Warren Bu"ett have ar-gued that the economy is on its way back to growth because #rms are regaining con#dence to invest and develop.

So which side is it? Will lagging sec-tors cause a double-dip recession or will fundamental changes reveal an even stronger economy? Perhaps it is neither. It is possible that sluggish growth, neither a double-dip reces-sion nor a completely healthy recov-ery, will occur. Structural changes take time to have an e"ect, and lag-ging sectors are just that – delayed – and thus do not re%ect future shifts in the economy. It appears that even though “W” had many political im-plications, the letter will not have nearly as in%uence of an economic e"ect. Aaron Lutkowitz is a !rst-year ma-joring in business.

In May 2010, two bloggers, Pa-mela Gellar and Robert Spencer, created an uproar in American po-litical dialogue when they deemed a proposed community center being built on Park Place in Manhattan “the Ground Zero mosque.” Gellar and Spencer are the co-founders of a group called Stop Islamization of America, a movement that forms part of the growing trend of Islamo-phobia in America.

!e September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City (as well as the Pentagon and Pennsylvania) created new anti-Islamic sentiment in America. How-ever, the issue of Islamophobia in the United States has not been debated on such a wide scale until now, as tensions over the center’s construc-tion rise. Nine years after the attacks, Ahmed Habeeb, president of the Is-lamic Center of Long Island, felt a need to warn the local community so that celebrations marking the end of Ramadan (which fell this year on September 11) would not be mistak-en for celebrations of the attacks. He remarked in an August 19 New York Times article, “It sounds strange to have to say this, I know. But in this climate you can’t be too careful.”

Imam Shamsi Ali, director of the Jamaica Muslim Center in Queens, reports in the same article that this Islamophobia “is causing the same resistance to the building of mosques in Staten Island and Tennessee and California.” And even Wisconsin. Dr. Mansoor Mirza complained in a TIME Magazine article that his appeal to the town council of She-boygan County, Wisconsin to build

a mosque on private property was re-ceived with arguments about hidden jihadi training camps across America and an epidemic of drug and alcohol use among Muslims.

With these examples of Islamopho-bia, it is not surprising that a mosque to be built at Ground Zero would provoke intense debate; however, the supposed “Ground Zero mosque” will neither be located on Ground Zero nor be a mosque. !e proposed Park51, an idea from the Cordoba Initiative (a group which aims to create interfaith cooperation), would be a nine-story community center located two blocks from Ground Zero on Park Place.

Replacing a 1850s building that once housed a Burlington Coat Factory, Park51 would include performing arts venues, gym and #tness facili-ties, a bookstore and school, a food court, a September 11 memorial and a prayer space. As has been pointed out, the World Trade Center towers themselves featured a Muslim prayer space.

Di"erent arguments have emerged among those opposed to Park51. Some angrily claim that the commu-nity center will be a symbol of radi-cal Islam and a “victory memorial” for the 9/11 hijackers. Terry Jones, a radical Florida pastor, showed his opposition to the project when he threatened to burn copies of the Qu’ran unless the Islamic center is moved elsewhere, which led to criti-cism from Gen. David Petraeus, who said that such an act would anger Muslims and endanger U.S. soldiers overseas. More moderate opponents

of the “Ground Zero mosque” fear that the construction of an Islamic center near the site where Al-Qaeda hijackers murdered more than 2,600 people will only worsen tensions in the U.S. between Muslims and non-Muslims, as evidenced by the mass uproar already.

On the other hand, proponents point out that denying Muslims the right to build such a house of wor-ship would be a victory for the 9/11 terrorists, symbolizing a restric-tion of liberty similar to that in the Middle East. !ey claim the consti-tutional right to freedom of religion, stating that America was founded on principles that would allow and even encourage this. !e Cordoba Initiative organizers call Park51 a “platform for multi-faith dialogue,” saying it will “strive to promote in-ter-community peace, tolerance, and understand locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally.”

Regardless of whether the commu-nity center is built or not, this issue has brought to the surface an impor-tant issue in America: Islamophobia. Leaders of Muslim organizations concerned about the growing trend in American political thought held a summit during the weekend of Sep-tember 17-19, 2010, to discuss the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment sur-rounding the proposed center. Time will only tell the fate of Park51.

Amanda Claire Grayson is a sopho-more majoring in peace, war, and de-fense and political science.

As the November elections approach, the U.S. House of Representatives seat for the Fourth District of North Carolina, which includes Durham, Orange, and parts of Wake County, is in contention. For twenty-two years, Democrat and UNC alum-nus David Price has represented the district in Washington, and remains an important #gure in the North Carolina Democratic Party. GOP Challenger B.J. Lawson, the founder of the medical software company MercuryMD, is running on the Re-publican ticket. !is year’s race is a rematch of the 2008 election, when David Price beat Lawson at the polls by taking 63% of the votes. Both of the candidates’ plat-forms cover many issues, notably taxes, healthcare, and immigration. B.J. Lawson supports the Bush tax cuts and believes that they should be renewed in order to promote small businesses. He wants to elimi-nate the income tax, and is against Obama’s new trillion dollar infra-structure plan. In contrast, David Price favors repealing the Bush tax

cuts, and is against a national sales tax. Price favors simplifying the tax code and extending tax credits to businesses that create new jobs, with preferential treatment given those that invest in alternative energy. !e largest di"erence be-tween these two candidates is their stance on healthcare. B.J Lawson is largely against President Obama’s healthcare reform plan. David Price voted for Obama’s healthcare plan. Lawson, who credits his medical background for sparking his interest in politics, believes in using funded health savings accounts and advo-cates their availability to everyone. He also pushes for all medical costs to be tax deductible. He supports the creation of a public healthcare plan as a “fallback” for those who cannot a"ord private plans, but places em-phasis on the public having a choice. Price also advocates that insurance companies should not be able to deny coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions.Another hot topic in the election is immigration. B.J. Lawson believes

that by giving illegal immigrants public services the government is perpetuating the problem. Lawson calls for no concessions to immi-grants within the country, and sup-ports Arizona’s SB1070. David Price believes immigration reform is not about enforcement alone and calls for pathways by which immigrants can legally enter the country, arguing that this will also help employers. He calls for illegal immigrants currently within the country to be given legal status on a case-by-case basis. In an email interview with Lawson, he encouraged UNC stu-dents to think twice about the role of the federal government in the lives of its citizens and in the econ-omy, citing that jobs are scarce for graduates and the government is encouraging students to take out record-high loans. When asked why a campus that predominantly voted Democrat in the last election should vote for him, he stated, “Most stu-dents voting for President Obama were attracted to the message of transparency and government ac-countability. Two years later, we have seen neither.” Lawson cited the re-cent healthcare plan and the lack of accountability for the 2008 bailouts as examples. He also touched on Obama’s promise to change for-eign policy, pointing out that little has changed other than fruitless at-tempts at nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lawson summa-rized his campaign in the word “op-portunity,” but will have to wait until November 2nd to see if he will have to opportunity to make a di"erence.

Stephanie Shenigo is a junior majoring in political science.

One of the things that has de#ned the Middle East over the past decade is the desire for agency and self-de-termination. In the case of some this desire is expressed in terms of na-tionhood, and international recogni-tion, while others seek to showcase agency through a powerful expres-sion of sovereignty via the interna-tional community. For some parties self-determination is based in nation-al consolidation, even in the wake of staggering politi-cal disunity. Turkey, Egypt, and Israel are all di"erent players competing for in%uence on a narrow stage that is only shrinking further. !e future of such states is inherently tied to ex-ternal expressions of agency via oth-er state and non-state actors. Even-tual outcomes for states will also be established by internal drives toward determination that may threaten the overall cohesion within these states and within other states.

One internally perceived push for greater autonomy comes from Iran in the form of its nuclear program. Iran has insisted that it desires nu-clear technology for peaceful uses only, but the international com-munity has remained skeptical of this claim. Recently a sixth round of multiparty sanctions was pressed against the Islamic Republic, but

this time they came with a twist. Turkey, a previous advocate of sanc-tions, voted against the latest mea-sures at curbing Iran’s nuclear pro-gram. !is move caused convulsions throughout the international com-munity, resulting in greater tension between Israel, Turkey, and the U.S. Turkey voted against the sanctions

after concessions gained from Iran were rejected by the U.S. and others via Turkey’s negotiations alongside those of Brazil. !is was both an act of de#ance and an act of positive self-a$rmation, as Turkey is grow-ing as a regional and world power. In the eyes of some Turkey represents a nation with a large Muslim popula-

tion that is not entirely hamstrung by U.S. and Israeli interests in the Middle East. For others Turkey is a nation in %ux, between the path of a maverick state, and a positive power broker. !is new Turkish dynamic

has reared its head in several ways, especially in reference to relations with Israel.

!e relationship between Turkey and Israel prior to 2008 was one de#ned by exchanges of security technolo-gies, military hardware, and warm diplomatic overtures. Since then this cordiality marked by mutual bene#t has been placed in serious jeopardy following three major events. !e #rst is the bombing of Gaza during operation Cast Lead in which many Palestinian civilians were killed. !is event garnished a response from Tur-key which materialized in the second signi#cant challenge to the Turkish-Israeli alliance. Turkey did not invite Israel to the annual NATO-aligned military exercise, the Anatolian Ea-gle. President Obama has since an-nounced that the U.S. Air Force will not be able to participate in Anatolia Eagle exercise as it has participated in two previous military exercises with Turkey this year. !ere is spec-

ulation that this announcement is a direct result of An-kara’s decision not to invite Israel. !e #nal incident that seriously damaged

ties between Israel and Turkey was the deaths of nine Turkish citizens as a result of a raid on a %otilla to aid Gaza by Israeli commandos. Mu-tual attitudes of mistrust and annoy-ance have surfaced between these

two states in a somewhat disturbing fashion. !e paranoia and tension created in the past few months be-tween Turkey and Israel appears to have been slightly o"set by U.S. re-assurances to continue arms sales to Turkey in order to rea$rm a tradi-tionally good relationship, especially in the face uncertainty from some pro-Israel lobbies within the U.S.

!e newly initiated Palestin-ian-Israeli talks are every bit as contentious as ever, espe-cially against the backdrop of four murdered Israeli settlers and subsequent controver-sial arrests within the West Bank. !e freeze on the construc-tion of new Israeli settlements ex-pired on September 26th, and Israeli settler leaders have established that any further moratoriums on settle-ment building will not be accepted. !is same sentiment among many

Likud Party Right-Wing Ministers has placed Netanyahu in an awk-ward position. If he does not call for a stop to settlements, it is likely that peace talks will completely dis-solve, and if he does than he will be alienated politically. Palestinian of-#cials have insisted that a freeze to illegal settlements beyond the 1967

borders as established in U.N. Secu-rity Council Resolution 446 must be a fundamental tenant of any peace process. Another major obstacle to the peace process is the question of Gaza currently under the leader-ship of the Islamic militant group

Hamas, which does not recognize Israel. How can a multifaceted peace process unroll in such a convoluted situation where agency is being te-naciously coveted by all sides? Egypt could be in a potential position to answer that question, however its place is compromised in the eyes of many in the Middle East because of

its warm relationship with Israel, even at the perceived expense of relations with its Arab neighbors. Its falter-ing economy, accompanied by growing discontent in the population, has added to the internal tension fester-ing within. With President Mubarak aging, and omi-

nous clouds hovering above the re-gion, Egypt could readily #nd itself at tumultuous crossroads in the near future.

Ismaail Qaiyim is a junior majoring in peace, war, and defense and history.

In a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina last February, President Obama emphasized a timetable for exiting Iraq, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” !e troop withdrawal from Iraq has already begun, downsized to 50,000 noncombat troops. Troops will be gradually withdrawn until all troops are out by December 31, 2011, an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government in 2008. !e purpose of the troops still currently in Iraq is to work behind the scenes, training, advising and assisting the Iraqis. However, it is unrealistic to expect these troops to remain in Iraq without any con%ict; two mortalities and nine injuries have already been recorded from one isolated #re#ght. !ere is still a great amount of unrest and uncertainty in Iraq regarding the withdrawal, the lack of a stable government only compounding the problem.

Iraq must overcome the burden of a di$cult and troublesome recent his-tory. !e Gulf War of 1990-1 re-sulted in the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but left Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power. Instead of attempting to oust Hussein and his regime, the U.N. imposed eco-nomic sanctions on Iraq, which lead to economic hyperin%ation and ci-vilian malnutrition. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney provided the rationale for not press-ing on to Baghdad: “I would guess if we had gone in there…we’d be run-ning the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq but this time with the end goal of ousting Saddam Hussein. !e con%ict resulted in more than 4,400 American casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. !e Obama administration recently changed the Iraqi mission name from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to “Operation New Dawn,” dem-onstrating the American desire to move forward in establishing a new Iraq. President Obama has noted that wars like the one in Iraq do not end simply with peace treaties and parades. Accordingly, Obama has asserted that the Iraqis must now take responsibility for governing and #ghting, but not without continuing American aid in terms of money and weapons.

!e concerns of security and gov-ernment are obviously of the ut-most importance in determining Iraq’s future. Iraqi Defense Minis-ter Abdul-Qadir al-Ubaidi believes that Iraq will be heavily dependent upon the United States for military training and weapons support as far into the future as 2016. As al-Ubaidi remarked rather candidly, “As long as I have an army and I’m a !ird World country, and I can’t pretend that I’m better than that ... I will need assistance.” !e United States will provide Iraq with thirteen bil-lion dollars worth of military equip-ment and eighteen additional F-16s, though these weapons aren’t expect-ed to be in Iraq until 2013. How-ever, American soldiers are needed to instruct Iraqis on the use of these weapons, as well as maintenance; a

di$cult task as all American troops are expected to be out of Iraq by the end of next year. !e Iraqi military’s most senior o$cer, Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari, stated, “If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to poli-ticians: the U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.”

Security is vitally important in Iraq’s future given the neighboring coun-tries and Iraq’s internal history of vi-olence. !e threat of civil war is de-creasing but still present. It’s unclear whether the Iraqi security forces will be able to maintain control of the country with a reduced U.S. presence and while the main Iraqi parties are deadlocked over forming a new gov-ernment.

America can provide deterrence to violence if it is willing to make a long-term commitment to serving as both a peacekeeper and a media-tor. Security in Iraq has improved enormously since the darkest days of 2005-2006, but there is no guarantee that the future will be peaceful. Iraqi security forces are still dependent on U.S. aid, #scal and otherwise, and the Iraqi government does not yet have the stability required to avoid and withstand opposition. !e Iraqis do not yet have enough fortitude to withstand the indubitable oppo-sition it will face when U.S. troops completely leave Iraq.

Jesse Beam is a junior majoring in management.

Negotiators for Israel and the Pal-estinians have embarked on a year-long series of negotiations meant to culminate in a peace agreement that would put to rest decades of con%ict between them. !is latest attempt to reach a settlement on the myriad is-sues that divide them is in no way original. However, there seems to be a sense of urgency about these ne-gotiations from all parties involved, some of whom have suggested that this is a pivotal moment when fail-ure could precipitate vastly increased con%ict for decades to come. !ree other countries-- the Unit-ed States, Egypt, and Jordan—are participating in the talks.. !ey see resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian con%ict as an opportunity to begin to heal many divides in the region.

Negotiators for each country are both motivated and constrained by their domestic political situations.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minis-ter of Israel, heads a fragile coalition government. Several of the parties in the coalition are right-wing or reli-gious parties, and strongly oppose limits on new Israeli settlements. As a result, Israel let a 10-month mora-torium on building new settlements expire at the end of September. !e decision was criticized by the U.S. and the Palestinians, who had threatened to leave the negotiations

if the moratorium was not extend-ed. Some members of Netanyahu’s government do not even believe the peace negotiations are worthwhile. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently said that Israel should drop the peace negotiations this year, breaking with the o$cial Israeli government stance.

Mahmoud Abbas, who represents the West Bank, is constrained by a lack of in%uence in the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas. A peace agreement negotiated by Ab-bas may not carry any weight in the Gaza Strip, and if Hamas were to oppose the agreement it could be impossible to implement. Hamas is not a party in the negotiations. Ad-ditionally, Abbas has already com-promised signi#cantly on the issue of settlements by remaining in the negotiations despite having threat-ened to leave them.

Failure to reach a peace settlement could be very costly for the United States. President Obama has made e"orts to appear to challenge both Israel and the Palestinians to make compromises, and has insisted that they must keep an open dialogue. !e administration has prioritized improving relations with the Mus-lim world as a means to reduce the threat of terrorism and opposition to its military initiatives in Afghani-stan.

Omid Sa#, UNC professor of re-ligious studies, said in an e-mail interview with !e Hill that the United States’ success in appealing to the Muslim world “will depend on whether the United States will be able to actually play the role of a peace broker.” He added, “Our his-tory over the last few decades has been that of an almost one-sided and ardent support of Israel, both #nancially and in terms of the UN standing.”King Abdullah II of Jordan and Pres-ident Hosni Mubarak of Egypt are both heavily invested in the process for the sake of stability in the Mid-dle East. King Abdullah II explained that these peace negotiations may be the last opportunity for moderates like him to show weary Muslims and Arabs that they can bring about change. He said that if they failed, he could envision new con%icts arising in the region, exacerbating existing tension. Professor Sa# concurred: “unless the 60 year tragedy of Pal-estinians is dealt with in a fair and just manner, it will continue to drive many to sympathize with the rheto-ric of the violent groups.” !e peace negotiations therefore have the po-tential to change the outlook for the whole region.

Tatiana Brezina is a senior majoring in political science and global studies.

It is late July; heavy monsoons strike Pakistan, launching %oods un-matched in the last eighty years. Over twenty million people are a"ected – a number of victims far greater than that of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004, and the earthquakes in Kashmir in 2005 and Haiti in 2010, combined. More so, over 1.2 mil-lion homes are destroyed; around 6 million are left homeless; and many more are without access to clean wa-ter and food. Conditions are abysmal. One resident, Manzoor Admed, said to the Dawn media group, “It would have been better if we had died in the %oods as our current miserable life is much more painful.”

Private aid from America to Paki-stan has been woefully insu$cient. !e Indiana University’s Center for Philanthropy estimates total private aid as of August 30 to be around 25 million dollars; in contrast, in #ve weeks, private individuals in Amer-ica donated over 900 million dollars to relief in Haiti. !ere are a num-ber of hypotheses for the low private donations. For one, donors respond di"erently to %oods than they do to earthquakes; indeed, Randy Strash of World Vision said to the NPR, “Earthquakes, regardless of their location, under the same circum-stances will raise 10 to 15 times more from the private donors than a %ood.” Moreover, there are questions of donor fatigue. 40 percent of U.S. households have already donated money to the Haiti relief e"orts, and the economy has not yet recovered. In addition, the media is a factor. !e Project for Excellence in Journalism estimates that the coverage of the

Haiti earthquake was ten times as much as the %oods in Pakistan.

!e US government has made some moves to address the situation in Pakistan; there has been a response from the military, with the develop-ment of combined Marine and Navy Corps; certain public funds are be-ing opened; resources are being acti-vated. From a pragmatic perspective, there are certainly bene#ts to helping out the people of Pakistan. An em-pirical study of the Kashmir earth-quake in 2005 shows that foreign aid boosted perceptions of America amongst the a"ected populations. Tahir Andrabi, co-author of the re-search, said to the Associated Press, “We came up with a conclusion that aid did a"ect hearts and minds in Kashmir, and signi#cantly. I don’t think these people will forget.” !e Joint Chief of Sta"s, Adm. Michael Mullen, said, “!at’s not why we do it, but the possibility is there. I’m hopeful that many Pakistani citizens can see a di"erent side of America than what is often portrayed.”

Unfortunately, a governmental re-sponse with the activation of some military resources can only go so far. Christopher Albon, the founder of Con%ict Health, a widely read online publication with analysis on armed con%ict and public health, said in an email to !e Hill, “there are many disaster relief actions for which the military is not suited (in particular, long term development), and it will be those areas that the diminished civilian government response will have the worst negative e"ects. !e US military is not designed, trained,

or equipped for long term recon-struction projects. !ose tasks are the area of civilian aid agencies, NGOs, and IGOs. !e lack of resources in terms of donations and government pledges will weaken these long term reconstruction projects.”

!e su"ering people in Pakistan need a dramatic response from both public and private entities. Water-borne diseases have the potential to wreck tremendous damage. As of the beginning of September, there were over 1 million diarrhea or re-spiratory infections; dysentery is a serious danger for countless many. !e breadbasket of Pakistan has been ravaged by the %ooding; food security is nil.

!e citizens of Pakistan are losing their trust in their already weak gov-ernment. Aijaz Hussein, 27, said to the Associated Press, “I don’t know what they are thinking, what is in their minds. !ey provide us noth-ing. Now we will not support the government. Whoever helps us we will support.” Will the Taliban capi-talize on the many failures of the Pakistan government, an ally of the United States, and the slowness of the global community?

Time will tell. Now, what we know for sure is that the people in Pakistan are in turmoil. As su"ering abounds, current donations are not enough. !e world undoubtedly needs to step up.

Krishna Kollou is a junior majoring in economics and computer science.

!e French Senate passed legislation by a vote of 246 to 1 on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, mak-ing it illegal for individuals to cover their faces in public. !e bill now waits for approval from France’s top court, the Constitutional Council, which has one month to rule before the bill can be signed into law by Presi-dent Nicolas Sarkozy. It passed with overwhelm-ing support in France’s lower house, the National Assembly, last July. Al-though the law does not speci#cally reference Is-lam, it will a"ect Mus-lim women who wear the burqa or the niqab, two articles of clothing which completely cover the face and body. Under the new law, women can be re-quired by police to show their face, and if they refuse, they would face a #ne of approximately $185. !e law also makes it ille-gal to force any woman to wear a burqa, and this act carries a penalty of up to 1 year in prison and a #ne of $38,400. !e proposal has drawn widespread backing from the French public to ban the burqa, with a Pew Global Attitudes poll reporting that in April and May 80% of the French public backed the ban. !e approval of this bill re%ects the worry that many French citizens have about the growing visibility of Islam in French society. !ere is a “re-veiling” trend among a younger generation of girls, and many French citizens are concerned that this is due to the manipulation of Islam by

zealots. !e ban on the burqa is pro-moted as a way to discourage fun-damentalist Islam from taking root in France. In a telephone interview

with !e Hill, Amara Bamba, chief editor of Saphir News, a paper for Muslims in France, said that that the re-veiling trend points to a “search for identity for the Mus-lim youth” and does not mean that Islam is being corrupted by extremists in France. He explained that French institutions are built against religion, and this is why the new-est religion in France has been encountered so much resistance.France is a country with deep-seat-ed secularist sentiments, as seen by the law passed in 2004, which mandated that all prominent reli-

gious signs, including the burqa, be banned from state schools and other public buildings. !is is based o" the stern French belief in laïcité, a com-plete separation of church and state. !e burqa also poses a se-curity concern. Supporters of the ban have said that there are certain instances, such as picture IDs, vot-ing, marriage, medical treatment, or exams, that require an unveiled face. Admission to banks, jewelry shops, sports events, consulates, and air-ports may also require an identi#able face. Many prominent French politicians have spoken out as the burqa con#ning the freedom of women. President Nicolas Sarkozy has also said that the “full veil is con-trary to the dignity of women”. He

called for respect for Muslims in the same speech. Potential backlash for the law is great. It is estimated that there are 1,900 women who wear the burqa in France, a country with a Muslim population of 5-6 million. Some of these women wear the veil for genuine religious beliefs; how-ever, there are others who wear it be-cause it is the only way they would be permitted to go outside. !is leads to fears that the burqa ban may con#ne women to their home, and for this reason, many in the feminist move-ment and the political left reject the ban on the burqa. !ere are also fears that the law may stigmatize French Muslims. Many liberals are uneasy about a di-rect encroachment on personal free-dom, saying the ban would strength-en suspicions in the Islamic world that Europe discriminates against Islam. Law enforcement would also be di$cult, as there would be challenges in proving that a woman is wearing her burqa under the order of a man. If the bill is not challenged by the Constitutional Council, it will come into e"ect in six months, granting citizens time to learn what the ban entails. Judicial challenges are expected by the European Court of Human Rights and by the Coun-cil of State. Most of the opposition to the bill in the National Assembly came in the form of abstentions by the Socialist Party, with the sole op-posing vote cast by Daniel Garrigue, who fears that “To #ght an extremist behavior, we risk slipping toward a totalitarian society.”

Radhika Kshatriya is an undeclared sophomore.

On the Chapel Hill-Car-rboro Schools website, no subject “art” exists. !ough the schools’ policy addresses related topics, the website’s lack of acknowledgement for the arts demonstrates a general trend in the state’s attitude toward arts education. As the North Carolina Arts Education Standard Course of Study says, the arts have intrin-sic value. !is means they are worth learning for learning’s sake: for challenging, stimulat-ing, and providing an expressive outlet. Such individual bene#ts also bene#t the population ho-listically with the creation of so-cial bonds and the expression of communal meanings, according to a 2009 report by the North Carolina Department of Cul-tural Resources. With these basic rea-sons as a foundation, a strong arts education should be advo-cated for in U.S. schools, even as arts education dwindles in an economic downturn and a new age of global educational com-petition. Students of the arts who pursue careers in the arts contribute to a stronger econo-my and a more competitive, diverse America, according a 2005 paper by Bruno S. Frey. In this way the com-munity of North Carolina and the nation both bene#t from students of the arts. UNC School of the Arts (UNCSA) makes North Carolina unique. UNCSA is a high school, undergraduate and graduate pub-lic university for the study of visual art, dance, design and production, drama, #lm and music. Of the 12 major U.S. conservatories, only three are public. UNCSA is one. And UNCSA has managed to keep its tuition low for both in- and out-of-

state residents, despite budget cuts and tuition hikes. When North Carolina schools faced budget cuts, UNCSA’s base operating budget was reduced by 33% or $725,000, more than any other UNC system school. As a re-sult of the budget cuts and campus-initiated tuition increases, tuition has

risen $310 dollars for out-of-state high school students, $612 for out-of-state undergraduates and $634 for out-of-state graduate students. !ese budget cuts and tu-ition increases re%ect two things. First, the arts often fall to the bot-tom of the priorities list when it comes to policy decisions, whether in education, creative industries or public works. !is results in remark-ably low funding for arts programs. Second--and more optimistic-- is that the comparatively low tuition hikes re%ect a commitment to an ac-cessible and low-cost arts education by UNCSA and the UNC system.

In December 2009, !e John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy published a report by Max Borders titled “!e UNC School of the Arts: Should it be Self-Supporting?” !e report claims UNCSA is “not likely to im-prove the well-being of any given NC citizen taken at random, much less a majority of citizens” and con-cludes “UNCSA is not the kind of expenditure justi#ed by my un-derstanding of a public bene#t for the people of NC, the only reason for North Carolinians to subsidize anything.” Borders suggests that UNCSA be made “self-supporting, changing the nature of the school from a publicly funded to a privately funded (or hybrid) institution.” But UNCSA students are not the “only direct bene#ciaries of the state subsidy,” As Borders sug-gests. Professional artists, whether in music, dance, performance, #lm or the visual arts, do not create solely for themselves. !ese students do not turn their education at UNCSA into a sel#sh life where only they bene#t from their artistic works. !ese works bene#t all the citizens of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and the nation- particularly as the artists take their work around the world, sharing and partnering with di"erent communities. !is report plays into the greater issue of public arts funding. As N.C. State Senator Ellie Kinnaird said in an e-mail interview with !e Hill, “!e arts belong to everyone to enjoy and engage in, and, as such, is the heart of our communities. We must encourage and preserve art for the present and the future- they are also a source of economic develop-ment reaping great rewards for the communities in which they are housed. When economic times are tough, core services

Education leaders in North Carolina are rejoicing after the August 24 an-nouncement that the state won $400 million dollars in the newly institut-ed Race to the Top Program.

!e competitive grant race started by the Obama administration was drafted last July, with applications accepted earlier this year. !e Race to the Top program has four fo-cus areas. It calls for states to have or implement standardized testing and benchmarks, a comprehensive longitudinal data system to track each individual student’s academic progress, recruitment of new teach-ers and extensive evaluations of cur-rent teachers and e"ective methods to turn around the nation’s lowest-performing schools.

!e program also emphasizes the need to close achievement gaps be-tween white and minority students, increase graduation rates, and raise

test scores in math and English.North Carolina has some of the poorest-performing schools in the nation, with some graduating fewer than 50% of their freshman class. !e extensive end-of-course standard-ized testing program and NCWISE tracking system for K-12 help the state measure performance. North Carolina also emphasizes funding and reforming schools not meeting No Child Left Behind requirements and other high-priority schools.

North Carolina’s application high-lighted many incentive programs, such as the use of pay raises to en-courage teachers to become Na-tional Board certi#ed or to transfer to hard-to-sta" schools. It also men-tioned the North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program, which provides high school seniors a full undergrad-uate scholarship in exchange for four years of teaching in North Carolina, and the state’s participation in Teach for America. Both help to close the education gap and bring teachers into high-poverty, low performing areas.

However, the Race to the Top pro-gram has been somewhat contro-versial, especially its emphasis on charter schools. Governor Bev Per-due sent a public letter to Federal Education Secretary Arne Duncan that brought attention to the disad-vantages of charter schools.

“!e truth is, evidence doesn’t bear out that students are better at charter schools,” said Professor Gary Henry of Education Policy at UNC in a personal interview with !e Hill. “!is shows a fundamental concern that a lot of things required in Race to the Top are unproven.” !e #nal-ized program now puts less empha-

sis on charter schools.Another controversy has been over the requirement that states use stu-dent success to determine teachers’ pay. Many teachers believe that it will punish teachers who have credit recovery, special education or ESL students, who tend to have lower-than average test scores. !ey argue that it is di$cult to evaluate how much an individual teacher caused a student’s performance to change.

To counteract these fears, Henry said, the people a"ected by changes made by Race to the Top will “have input on how the system [will] be developed.” Bill Harrison, the Chairman of the State Board of Education in North Carolina, has stressed the use of constant evalua-tions in implementing the Race to the Top reforms. For teacher pay raises this means use of a two year trial period in which changes to the system will not a"ect teachers’ pay. !ese changes will also rely heavily on data collection and teacher and administrative input.

While the Race to the Top program is somewhat of an educational ex-periment, the results will hopefully, as declared by the Obama admin-istration, lead to concrete change in America’s school system. North Carolina’s job as an education trail-blazer, according to Henry, is “to #nd out which, if any, of those e"orts are really paying o" and try to help strengthen them so that in the end we will see more kids graduate, bet-ter test scores, and increased college enrollment.”

Nicole Johnson is a !rst-year majoring in public policy.

Continued from previous page:such as police, #re, etc. will be fund-ed #rst. !e public would probably agree with that, but we are poorer as a nation when that happens.” While we face an economic downturn and support for public arts funding dwindles, UNCSA and the UNC system have remained committed to the intrinsic value of the arts for individuals and commu-nities. !ese institutions have set a model with their continued dedica-tion to a low cost professional arts education- even, and perhaps most crucially, in times of economic hard-ship.

Carey Averbrook is a sophomore ma-joring in peace, war. and defense.

Online

Education is the key to eco-nomic development for the United States. !is philosophy is promoted at the highest levels of government by leaders from both major political parties. If we accept the thesis that education is the key to success and economic development for the U.S., are Ameri-can colleges and univer-sities preparing students for current and future employment opportu-nities? As our nation struggles economically, colleges and universities are experiencing record enrollments. According to a 2010 US Labor Department report, the percentage of recent US high school graduates attending college reached its highest level of 70 % in 2009 as compared to 45% back in 1959.

Students are placing their hopes, dreams, and #nancial futures on a college education that may or may not deliver the career opportunities they expect. In the information age, stu-dents in the developing world have

access to much the same knowledge base as students in the most devel-oped urban areas of the U.S. Many of the best and brightest from our nation choose careers in the #nan-cial sector and other more person-

ally lucrative enterprises, rather than more long-term commitments to research oriented careers that drive future industrial development and technological advances. At the same time our global competitors are ad-vancing in key areas of science and technology at a pace that the U.S. is unable to match and US students appear unwilling to pursue. A 2008 National Science Foundation study reported that 59 % of all doctoral degrees and 43% of all higher edu-cation degrees in science and tech-nology were awarded to temporary residents of the U.S. According to the 2010 Academic Rankings of World Universities, our nation’s universities remain the destinations of choice for students from around the world; both UNC and Duke are ranked in the top 50. With access to world-class education, why aren’t

more American students pre-paring to com-pete for the jobs of the 21st cen-tury? In the cur-rent global economy, an as-sociate or bacca-laureate degree in the humani-ties or social and behavioral sciences is the beginning of a college educa-tion, not a ticket to meaningful e m p l o y m e n t in a promising #eld. !e acad-emy, in many

According to a 2010 US Labor De-partment report, the percentage of

recent US high school graduates at-tending college reached its highest

level of 70 % in 2009 as compared to 45% back in 1959

!e Last Word on

cases, holds to the idea that educa-tion is not about employment but rather to develop critical thinking skills and personal en-richment. At a cost of tens of thousands of dol-lars, I am not con#dent that this traditional phi-losophy will comfort the college graduate working at a rental car counter in the airport. Over the past 50 years in the U.S., access to higher education has been a primary goal, rather than the performance of stu-dents, the needs of the nation, and the relevance of academic prepara-tion for jobs of the future. While college enrollments are at record levels, a large percentage of that growth can be attributed to students attending open-door community colleges and for-pro#t universities. For many non-traditional students, previous channels of employment for high school graduates have either moved o" shore or have become ob-solete through advances in technol-ogy. During this same period, there have been only modest enrollment increases at the nation’s most presti-gious graduate programs in the #elds of math, science, and technology, and primarily this growth is associ-ated with foreign students that are recruited to attend and #ll graduate research positions. US Corporate leaders, head-

lined by Bill Gates, stood before the US Congressional Committee on Science and Technology on March

12, 2008, pleading for more H1B Visas for foreign students to study and work in the U.S. !e leaders ex-pressed the critical need to maintain our international competiveness in science and technology. Our nation would have to go back 50 years to the time of the NASA project and the space race with the Soviet Union to experience a comparable period of national desperation regarding the nation’s future as a global indus-trial power and leader in science and technology. Gates and other corporate leaders were challenged by Congress to fund more scholarships for Amer-ican students in science and technol-ogy #elds. Gates responded by say-ing, “So scholarships I think can be helpful, but, you know, I’m not sure that alone would drive the kind of shift in attractiveness that we need to see here.” In other words, Ameri-can students are opting for less chal-lenging or more personally appeal-

In the current global economy, an associate of baccalaureate degree in the

humanities or social and behavioral sciences is the beginning of a college

education, not a ticket to meaningful employment in a promising !eld

ing academic #elds that do not meet the needs of highly skilled technical employment. What does all of this say about the role of education as a tool of US economic development? Stu-dents will need to consider the prac-tical nature of their chosen #elds of study and be willing to seek ad-vanced degrees or specialized train-ing beyond the baccalaureate de-gree. It is the dedication and skill of highly educated researchers, scien-tists, and academic leaders that have provided the historical foundation of U.S. economic success and the im-petus for employment opportunities for the general populace.

Dr. John Paul Black is the Dean of Arts and Sciences at Lenoir Community College in Kinston, North Carolina.