A Fair Free Lunch A Fair Free Lunch? Reconciling Freedom and Reciprocity in the Context of Universal Basic Income Olivia Martin Stanford University Author Noah Klein Christopher Lingelbach Orly Mansbach Editors Spring 2019 Download full text PDF (13 pages) A society that relies on generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society, for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter. Honesty and trust lubricate the inevitable frictions of social life. – Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Introduction In the 1970s, the Canadian federal government ran a large randomized experiment in giving citizens a basic income called “Mincome.” When Mincome participants were asked “Why wouldn’t you go on welfare, even if it would improve your income?” 37% responded that they would rather support themselves, giving explanations such as, “Welfare to me was accepting something for nothing,” or, “I feel more useful working.”[2] Similarly, in a survey of 121 working Germans, most participants rejected the provision of a basic income, because it was independent of level of need or contribution.[3] In both the scholarly discussion of basic income and in public opinion surveys, the unconditional freedom granted by universal basic income (UBI) seems to directly contradict the social norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity, most generally, is the idea that those who enjoy a share of the benefits of social cooperation owe a corresponding contribution to that society in return, as long as they are able.[4] This concept of reciprocity is central to the idea of the social contract itself: citizens owe to each other some degree of cooperation in order to receive social benefits. Is it possible to reconcile reciprocity and freedom in this context? If so, how? I argue that UBI succeeds in reconciling reciprocity and freedom by making its definition more inclusive, and by restricting our definition of freedom to a more morally defensible conception of republican freedom, all while endowing trust in participants. First, I briefly define basic income. Second, I explain the ethical conflict inherent between freedom and reciprocity as discussed by contemporary basic income scholars, primarily Stuart White and Philippe Van Parijs. Third, I argue that republican freedom deserves moral priority over real freedom in a non-ideal society. Fourth, I argue that a more egalitarian and inclusive conceptualization of reciprocity is required for justice in a non-ideal society. Finally, I compare UBI’s efficacy in achieving this reconciliation to Anthony Atkinson’s proposal of participation income. Defining Basic Income and This Paper’s Normative Framework UBI generally has five definitional features: basic income is in cash, unconditional, universal, individual, and consistent. In this way, UBI is a significant departure from most welfare benefits in the United States. Existing benefits are almost all means tested and often in-kind (e.g., food stamps) rather than cash, given on a household basis (allowing for potential domination of one spouse over another), and conditional on the performance of paid work for a period of time—as is required by the Earned Income Tax Credit, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurance. There are also features of UBI that vary dramatically across proposals: the specific cash amount given, the frequency with which it is given, how it is funded, and the package of policies it entails. The exact features of basic income greatly affect the extent of the tension between freedom and reciprocity—for example, the larger the grant is, the greater the freedom of the individual, but also the smaller the impetus to reciprocate. For the sake of this paper, I will assume a UBI as a $1,000 monthly grant, as is being tested by Y Combinator, a startup accelerator, and I will assume that UBI will be in an addition to existing welfare, save for the most redundant programs. I will limit this paper to considering UBI in the context of the United States. As this is a primarily conceptual paper, I will not construct my argument from a specific full-bodied normative framework, such as republican or libertarian political theory. Rather, I will rely on the normative framework of an egalitarian policymaker interested in the principles of justice required for a non-ideal society, and I will hold that a nonideal society is one without institutions that fully correct for unequal access to the means of production and inequalities of natural ability.[5] The United States, of course, is one such nonideal society. As such, I write from a framework that (1) recognizes the inability of current institutions to meet the basic requirements of a social contract that requires all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or class, to be treated equally, and (2) strives to evaluate policies by their success in treating all citizens as moral equals while still protecting citizens’ basic freedoms. The Conflict Between Freedom and Reciprocity While UBI offers a radical but simple proposition to provide a basic level of economic security for all regardless of one’s history of paid work, it also appears to contradict the social norm of reciprocity: the idea that those who enjoy a share of the benefits of social cooperation owe a corresponding contribution to that society in return, as long as they are able. The idea of reciprocity is often incorporated as a central tenet in theories of justice, such as in John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, as well as in economic theory, as in Adam Smith’s theory that reciprocity serves as a social invisible hand that allows the free market to function. On a societal level, one might say that citizens internalize the idea of reciprocity by performing paid work, paying taxes, and performing civic duties, while receiving government benefits in the form of public services, protection, and the insurance of government transfers in times of need. Stuart White, in his book The Civic Minimum, provides a useful account of justice as fair reciprocity. In society’s nonideal form where institutions are incapable of correcting for inequalities of natural ability, society must only meet the “threshold of basic fairness”—meaning that class inequality is minimized to the extent possible and that all citizens have access to jobs with above-poverty wages, opportunities for self-realization, and security against abuse and vulnerability. In a society that has met this threshold, citizens are required to reciprocate either in the form of paid labor or specific kinds of care work. One reason that White finds fair reciprocity to be essential is that it is both a product and stimulus of a society of democratic mutual regard, in which “individuals seek to justify their preferred political and economic institutions to others by appealing to shared basic interests, and to related principles that express a willingness to cooperate with their fellow citizens as equals.”[6] As such, White finds this form of reciprocity necessary to the social cooperation inherent in a functioning social contract. Justice as inextricably connected to reciprocity seems to be critically at odds with the unconditional freedom granted by UBI. It is most at odds with Philippe Van Parijs’s account in “Why Surfers Should be Fed,” in which Van Parijs argues that the most central tenet of justice is not reciprocity, but rather “real freedom.”[7] Under this conception of justice, society ought to maximize individuals’ ability to pursue their own conception of the good life, including what they might want to do in the future. This would imply that even able-bodied individuals who decide to spend all their time surfing (i.e., not concretely contributing to society) deserve a basic income just as much as those who spend time working in various ways to contribute to society and the funding of basic income. His argument centers on the following provocative thought exercise: Consider Crazy and Lazy, two identically talented but rather differently disposed characters. Crazy is keen to earn a high income and works a lot... Lazy is far less excited by the prospect of a high income and has decided to take it easy. With the Basic Income at the highest feasible level… Crazy is rather miserable because her net income falls far short of the income she would like to have. Lazy however is blissful.[8] Our traditional understanding of reciprocity would say that Crazy is being exploited by Lazy, whom we might see as free-riding off of the hard work of Crazy. Van Parijs turns this argument on its head with his Job Assets Argument, in which he asserts that jobs are an asset essential to real freedom, and that in our arguably non-Walrasian world, there will remain “morally arbitrary inequality in opportunity” between those lucky enough to be employed, and the involuntarily unemployed.[9] Thus, it might be Crazy, not Lazy, who has unsustainable preferences, and perhaps individuals like Lazy deserve to live off of their share of capital rents that have been monopolized by individuals like Crazy. Whether or not one believes Van Parijs’s Job Assets argument, Lazy is still exploiting Crazy by free-riding off of the work of Crazy, thereby violating the norm of reciprocity. Van Parijs does not try to imply that Lazy is not exploiting Crazy; rather he argues that Crazy has also exploited Lazy in an equal if not more severe way. Crazy’s exploitation of Lazy, however, is an issue that White finds to be based in the structural inequalities of society that cannot be directly solved by basic income. Regardless of whose understanding of asset distribution one believes, the debate between White and Van Parijs demonstrates that there is a clear and serious tension between reciprocity, as it has been traditionally defined, and real freedom. Real freedom, by definition, places the individual’s ability to realize their own potential above all else, including reciprocal obligations. Thus, a basic income that prioritized individuals’ real freedom could make no promise that recipients would make specific contributions in return if these contributions conflicted with the recipients’ ability to realize their real freedom. To resolve this tension, it is necessary to critically examine what definitions of reciprocity and freedom are those most necessitated by the pragmatic justice of an egalitarian policymaker. A Republican Re-Conception of Freedom In this section, I assert that real freedom is the inappropriate freedom to be juxtaposed with reciprocity, both because real freedom is nearly impossible to measure and because republican freedom deserves moral priority over real freedom in a nonideal society. Republican freedom is defined as freedom from nondomination and independence from arbitrary power. Real freedom, as defined by Van Parijs, necessitates not only the negative freedom required by republican freedom, but also the resources and capacities to carry out one’s will.[10] First, it seems nearly impossible to measure whether or not real freedom is being maximized in a society, unless one makes the assumption that income can be translated to real freedom on a one-to-one basis. How is it possible to measure the achievement of individuals being as free as possible to do what they might want to do? While there are some ways to estimate achievement of republican freedom, such as the number of workers with basic protections or changing poverty rates, it seems impossible to measure real freedom without assuming that income and real freedom share a monotonic relationship.[11] Though we cannot expect an exact measurement of whether or not a society is meeting the goal set by a theory of justice, such as equality, it does seem important to be able to at least approximate the extent to which we are meeting that goal in order to reassess and reevaluate policies. For real freedom, this process of approximation seems impossible. Second, republican freedom deserves moral priority over real freedom even under the most base egalitarian framework. Philip Petit defines republican freedom as nondomination, or the absence of unreasoned control.[12] Under a republican conception of freedom, the protection of individuals’ negative liberty (e.g., the freedom from exploitation and violation) is prioritized over the protection of individuals’ positive liberty—like the freedom to choose to spend one’s day surfing. Elizabeth Anderson critiques Van Parijs for not considering the fact that certain freedoms might deserve to be considered more worthy of defense than others. In explaining what freedoms are worth defending, Anderson says: What we owe [to each other] are not the means to generic freedom but the social conditions of the particular, concrete freedoms that are instrumental to life in relations of equality with others. We owe each other the rights, institutions, social norms [and] public goods … to exercise the capabilities necessary for functioning as equals in a democratic state.[13] In stating this, Anderson asserts that in the context of UBI, republican freedom is more morally defensible than real freedom. To an extent this seems to be true. An argument for real freedom could easily be co-opted by the wealthy asserting that any form of taxation is an affront to their real freedom, which may consist of purchasing multimillion-dollar yachts. Cases such as this would seem to erode the foundation for a social contract grounded in some idea of reciprocity, as any level of tax or contribution necessary to fund the freedom of the disadvantaged could be seen as an undeserved attack on the real freedom of the advantaged. It would seem more morally desirable to an egalitarian policymaker to first protect individuals from base levels of oppression—such as a woman who can leave an abusive relationship or an immigrant who can leave an exploitative job due to UBI—before protecting an unmeasurable freedom to do that which one might want to do. In Stuart White’s ideal world, in which all citizens already possess egalitarian social rights and in which institutions have the capacity to correct for inequalities of ability, there seems to be a reason for thoughtful debate on the relative moral priority deserved by real freedom and republican freedom. Increasing equality in individuals’ sense of real freedom constitutes a necessary later step in treating all citizens as moral equals. However, in the nonideal society of the United States, republican freedom is both the freedom most deserving of moral prioritization for anyone concerned with egalitarian values and the freedom that is most compatible with reciprocity. As demonstrated by the yacht example, real freedom will often create conflict with even the broadest definition of reciprocity. However, republican freedom will rarely create this same conflict. In fact, one might even argue that protecting people from base levels of oppression and domination empowers people to better reciprocate, rather than removing the impetus to do so. Once society moves closer to White’s ideal society, it will be appropriate to reconsider the prioritization of real freedom. Until then, there is a hierarchical order of priority in which, to meet Stuart White’s “threshold of basic fairness,” republican freedom ought to be prioritized over real freedom. An Egalitarian Re-Conception of Reciprocity Although prioritizing republican freedom over real freedom has brought us closer to reconciling freedom and reciprocity, there remains the issue of what precisely we ought to mean by reciprocity. Reciprocity, most generally, is the idea that those who enjoy a share of the benefits of social cooperation owe a corresponding contribution to that society in return, as long as they are able.[14] If we take the existing structures of welfare benefits in the US as a model of what it means to reciprocate in our society, then reciprocation largely means to have paid work, to have recently had paid work, or to actively be in search of paid work. Paid work, as valued by the current structure of policies, is elevated as the most—if not the only—legitimate form of reciprocity. This constitutes an unacceptably exclusive form of reciprocity for a theory of justice concerned with treating all individuals as moral equals. Large parts of society are excluded from a narrow definition of reciprocity that focuses on the economic contributions made through paid labor in the form of taxes. The most excluded cohort is the severely disabled, who are mostly unable to obtain paying jobs to economically contribute to society. According to Eva Kittay, to assume (as does John Rawls) that individuals are “normal” and cooperating members of society and that justice for disabled individuals can be determined at a later point is to fail to meet a standard of justice in which principles apply equally to citizens capable of fully cooperating and those unable to cooperate.[15] That standard of justice is one which treats all citizens as moral equals. A second cohort that is excluded by a narrowly-focused definition of economic reciprocity is those who perform unpaid labor in the home, primarily women. This exclusion has been noted by feminist proponents of basic income who lament the androcentric basis of the current social safety net.[16] The US welfare system is almost entirely built on such androcentric norms; a number of benefits are conditioned on whether the recipient engages in paid work outside the home, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Unemployment Insurance, the Child Tax Credit, and to an extent, Social Security. Single mothers are particularly penalized by the system’s current structure. These women are often forced to choose between taking care of their child and not having enough to live off, or working enough to pay for child care, not seeing their child enough, and still barely having enough to live off. Unsurprisingly, the poverty rate for single-mother families in 2016 was 35.6%, or five times the rate for married-couple families.[17] A narrow definition of reciprocity that excludes the disabled, women performing unpaid labor, and others such as children and the elderly, is unacceptable under an egalitarian framework in which humans are to be treated as moral equals. To solely focus on reciprocity as an economic activity is to neglect the fact that such economic participation would be impossible without the unpaid and socially necessary caregiving work within homes. In fact, one could argue that such a narrow-minded definition of reciprocity performs the precise injustice that reciprocity seeks to avoid: exploitation, in which those performing unpaid and socially unrecognized contributions to society are exploited by those who are performing paid contributions enabled by unpaid, unrecognized care givers. Lastly, the number of people excluded from a narrow definition of reciprocity as purely economic will only grow to be more unsustainable in a future scenario in which available employment decreases and more are employed involuntarily or part time. Basic income, by definition, does not depend on a form of reciprocity that only recognizes monetary contributions. Instead, basic income recognizes a more inclusive form of reciprocity in which recipients can reciprocate in a number of ways: child care, volunteering, civic participation, accepting lower paying jobs, and more. In this way, basic income not only acknowledges that there are multiple ways to contribute to society, but also is forward-looking in recognition of the fact that access to dependable, well-paying wage employment may decrease in future scenarios of technological unemployment. Participation Income vs. Universal Basic Income: A Matter of Trust We have now clarified the moral priority of republican freedom over real freedom under the framework of a pragmatic, egalitarian policymaker, as well as the need for a more inclusive definition of reciprocity. A policy that prioritizes republican freedom over real freedom would presumably first focus on offering a basic level of income (i.e., an amount sufficient to offer citizens the ability to “say no” to oppressive environments and situations, but perhaps not enough to do all that which they might want to). A policy that rejects the current exclusive definition of reciprocity would either explicitly expand reciprocity beyond financial contributions to include specific forms of participation or be entirely value neutral in allowing for a variety of interpretations of reciprocity. At first glance, Anthony Atkinson’s participation income appears to be the version of UBI which most directly addresses the tension between freedom and reciprocity inherent in basic income. Participation income is basic, like in UBI, but is conditional on “participation,” which includes a broad range of activities ranging from employment or self-employment to education, training, care-taking, or volunteer work. The condition necessitates “neither payment nor work,” and thus greatly expands what is meant by social contribution, despite not quite being value neutral.[18] Conceptually, participation income succeeds at addressing the serious concern regarding basic income’s threat to reciprocity by making reciprocity a condition of UBI. Furthermore, Atkinson’s broad definition of participation mitigates most concerns about the groups that are arbitrarily excluded from current interpretations of reciprocity. Of course, practically enforcing the conditions of participation income would be a public administration nightmare. It would be impossible for a government to measure whether or not a citizen made their “quota” of contribution hours for a month without enacting an immense surveillance state that would deprive from citizens the very freedom that basic income is supposed to expand. Nevertheless, participation income succeeds in providing a useful framing mechanism by which UBI proponents can assuage public concerns regarding the effect of basic income on traditional reciprocity. However, there is also a normative trade-off for this improved political framing. By making income conditional on immeasurable outcomes, rather than trusting citizens’ own sense of justice to constructively contribute to society, participation income fails to endow citizens with trust. This notion is both unreasonable and undesirable. It is unreasonable to think that citizens will wholly stop constructively contributing to society if the cash amount is in fact “basic”; one would only be able to live an extremely simple life off of $12,000 per year (it should be noted that the federal poverty level income for a family of four is $24,600, or about $12,300 per adult). It is undesirable because participation income continues to rely on the norm of distrust that is a foundation for today’s conditional welfare system. If UBI is to constitute the beginnings of a new, more just social contract, that contract cannot be created without the development of trust. In his essay “How can we trust our fellow citizens?” Claus Offe defines trust as “the belief that others, through their action or inaction, will contribute to my/our well-being and refrain from inflicting damage upon me/us.”[19] Offe notes that trust is often self-stabilizing; in other words, being trusted creates within us moral obligations that make us act in a trustworthy fashion in return. There is already some degree of empirical evidence that unconditional income creates self-stabilizing trust. For example, in a World Bank report reviewing 19 global experiments in unconditional cash income, only one study showed a statistically significant increase in the purchase of temptation goods such as alcohol and tobacco. Many studies actually showed statistically significant decreases in consumption of alcohol and tobacco. This result seems to further suggest that when people are trusted, they often act according to the moral obligations that receiving that trust creates.[20] Furthermore, in the Canadian Mincome experiment, participants stated they felt greater trust in their government and in themselves, with one respondent saying that “[basic income] trusts the Canadian people and leaves a man or woman, their pride.”[21] Alaska’s Permanent Dividend program offers insights similar to those of the Canadian Mincome experiment. Due to abundant oil production and revenue, the Alaskan government has, since the 1980s, paid out an annual dividend of around $1,000 to all eligible Alaskan residents. The majority of residents in Alaska now say that that they would prefer higher taxes as opposed to ending the Alaska Permanent Dividend,[22] indicating a new trust in government and fellow citizens. Economic research has recently showed that the Alaska Permanent Dividend has had no effect on full-time employment, and has actually increased part-time work by 17%.[23] The experiments in Canada and Alaska not only show that basic income has the potential to increase trust in others and the government, but also that there is little evidence of unconditional basic income negatively affecting economic reciprocity. As early experiments in basic income are beginning to show, the statement of trust made by unconditional income may reinforce the very reciprocity that many are concerned the unconditionality in basic income will destruct. Thus, while participation income provides useful political framing that connects basic income to reciprocity and boldly expands our definition of reciprocity, it fails to constitute either a practicable policy solution or an ideal toward which we ought to strive as a society. If we truly desire to create a fairer, more inclusive social contract, it must begin with trusting our fellow citizens. UBI is precisely the policy with which to create that new standard of trust. As experiments demonstrate, that trust will likely pay off. Conclusion I have shown that, for a theory of justice striving to treat individuals as moral equals, a republican conception of freedom is more appropriate than a conception of real freedom. I have also shown that current definitions of reciprocity are inadequate in treating all individuals as moral equals. I have compared the capacity of unconditional basic income and participation income to respond to this tension, and have asserted that only unconditional basic income succeeds in rectifying an exclusionary social contract by endowing all participants with trust. As the social contract currently exists, UBI may not be the most efficient way to reduce inequality. However, only UBI provides the groundwork for a new social contract in which not only freedom and reciprocity are reconcilable, but citizens are also trusted to meaningfully contribute to society. If current experiments in basic income continue and do not significantly diverge from the findings of ones previously conducted in Africa, Alaska, and Canada, this normative conclusion will continue to be furnished with empirical evidence about the self-stabilizing nature of trust endowed by UBI. Endnotes [1] A play on Philippe Van Parijs’s book title, What’s Wrong with a Free Lunch? [2] David Calnitsky, “‘More Normal than Welfare’: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience,” Canadian Sociological Association 53, no. 1 (February 2016): 54. [3] Stefan Liebig and Steffan Mau, “A Legitimate Guaranteed Minimum Income?” in Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, ed. Guy Standing, 210-224. (London: Anthem, 2004), 210. [4] Catriona Mackenzie, The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, s.v. “Reciprocity,” Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. [5] Stuart White, The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 17. [6] White, The Civic Minimum, 17. [7] Philippe Van Parijs, “Why Surfers Should Be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income,”Philosophy and Public Affairs 20, no. 2 (1991): 103. [8] Van Parijs, “Why Surfers Should Be Fed,” 105. [9] White, The Civic Minimum, 156. [10] Van Parijs, “Why Surfers Should Be Fed,” 104. [11] Brian Barry, “UBI and the Work Ethic,” The Boston Review, October, 2000, http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR25.5/barry.html. [12] Philip Petit, “A Republican Right to Basic Income?” Basic Income Studies 2, no. 2 (2007): 4. [13] Elizabeth Anderson,“Forum Response: A Basic Income for All,” The Boston Review, October, 2000, http://bostonreview.net/forum/basic-income-all/elizabeth-anderson-optional-freedoms. [14] Mackenzie, The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 1. [15] Mackenzie, The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 7. [16] Almaz Zelleke, “Institutionalizing the Universal Caretaker Through a Basic Income?” Basic Income Studies 3, no. 3 (2008): 2. [17] Kayla Patrick, “National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families, 2016,” National Women’s Law Center: Washington, D.C., 2017. [18] Anthony Atkinson, “The Case for a Participation Income,” The Political Quarterly 67, no. 1 (January 1996): 69. [19] Claus Offe, “How Can We Trust Our Fellow Citizens?” in Democracy and Trust, ed. Mark Warren (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 47. [20] David Evans and Anna Popova, “Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods: A Review of Global Evidence,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6886, The World Bank Africa Region, Office of the Chief Economist, Washington, D.C., 2014: 23. [21] David Calnitsky, “‘More Normal than Welfare’: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience,” Canadian Sociological Association 53, no. 1 (February 2016): 61. [22] Michael Coren, “Alaska Shows Even People in the Most Conservative States Prefer a Basic Income to Lower Taxes,” Quartz, June 30, 2017. [23] Damon Jones and Ioana Marinescu, “The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund,” NBER Working Paper No. 24312, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2018. References Anderson, Elizabeth. “Forum Response: A Basic Income for All.” The Boston Review, October, 2000, http://bostonreview.net/forum/basic-income-all/elizabeth-anderson-optional-freedoms . Atkinson, Anthony. “The Case for a Participation Income.” The Political Quarterly 67, no. 1 (January 1996): 67-70. Barry, Brian. “UBI and the Work Ethic.” The Boston Review, October, 2000, http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR25.5/barry.html . Calnitsky, David. “’More Normal than Welfare’: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience.” Canadian Sociological Association 53, no. 1 (February 2016): 26-71. Coren, Michael. “Alaska Shows Even People in the Most Conservative States Prefer a Basic Income to Lower Taxes.” Quartz, June 30, 2017. Evans, David and Anna Popova. “Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods: A Review of Global Evidence.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6886, The World Bank Africa Region, Office of the Chief Economist, Washington, D.C., 2014. Jones, Damon and Ioana Marinescu. “The Labor Market Impacts of Universal and Permanent Cash Transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund.” NBER Working Paper No. 24312, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2018. Liebig, Stefan and Steffan Mau. “A Legitimate Guaranteed Minimum Income?” In Promoting Income Security as a Right: Europe and North America, edited by Guy Standing, 210-224. London: Anthem, 2004. Mackenzie, Catriona. The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, s.v. “Reciprocity.” Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Offe, Claus. “How Can We Trust Our Fellow Citizens?” In Democracy and Trust, edited by Mark Warren, 42-87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Patrick, Kayla. “National Snapshot: Poverty Among Women & Families, 2016.” National Women’s Law Center: Washington, D.C., 2017. Petit, Philip. “A Republican Right to Basic Income?” Basic Income Studies 2, no. 2 (2007): 1-8. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Van Parijs, Philippe. “Why Surfers Should Be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20, no. 2 (1991): 101-131. White, Stuart. The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Zelleke, Almaz. “Institutionalizing the Universal Caretaker Through a Basic Income?” Basic Income Studies 3, no. 3 (2008): 1-9.

Rewriting the Antitrust Setlist: Examining the Live Nation-Ticketmaster Lawsuit and its Implications for Modern Antitrust Law Katya Tolunsky Author Malcolm Furman Arjun Ray Editors I. Introduction On November 15, 2022, the music industry witnessed an unprecedented event that would become a turning point in discussions about ticketing practices and market dominance. Millions of devoted Taylor Swift fans were devastated when they failed to secure tickets for the highly anticipated Eras Tour. The ticket release sparked chaos, with fans enduring hours–even days–on Ticketmaster’s website, battling extended delays, technical glitches, and unpredictable price fluctuations. Despite their unwavering persistence, many “Swifties” were left empty-handed. This high-profile debacle ignited a firestorm of criticism from politicians and consumers alike, who questioned Ticketmaster’s apparent lack of preparedness for the overwhelming demand. While not an isolated incident of consumer dissatisfaction, the scale of this event and the passionate outcry from Swift’s fan base catapulted long-standing issues with ticket availability, pricing, and fees into the national spotlight. The “Swift ticket fiasco” became a catalyst for broader scrutiny of Ticketmaster’s business practices. Lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups called for investigations into the company’s business model, while accusations circulated about Ticketmaster leveraging its market power to stifle competition and maintain high fees. This perfect storm of events set the stage for a renewed examination of antitrust concerns in the live entertainment industry, bringing the anticompetitive practices of Live Nation-Ticketmaster into the public political and legal spotlight. On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment (the merged company) for allegedly violating the terms of a 2010 settlement, which required Ticketmaster to license its software to competitors and prohibited Live Nation from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services, and engaging in anticompetitive practices. The DOJ’s complaint argues that Live Nation has used its control over concert venues and artists to pressure venues into using Ticketmaster and to punish those that don’t, effectively excluding rival ticketing services from the market. the DOJ is suing Live Nation-Ticketmaster for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and monopolizing markets across the live concert industry. This suit raises important questions about the application of the Sherman Act and the evolving approach to antitrust enforcement in the United States. At the heart of this case lies a fundamental clash between two competing philosophies of antitrust enforcement. For decades, the Chicago School approach has dominated American antitrust law, focusing narrowly on consumer welfare through the lens of prices and economic efficiency. However, a new perspective has emerged to challenge this framework. The “New Brandeis” movement, named after Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and championed by current FTC Chair Lina Khan, advocates for a broader understanding of competition law that considers market structure, concentration of economic power, and impacts on democracy—not just consumer prices. As this movement antitrust movement gains prominence and momentum, the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case represents a critical test for the application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act in the digital age. The outcome of this case will set important precedents for how antitrust law is applied to companies that dominate multiple interconnected markets. This paper seeks to analyze the evolution of antitrust law in the context of this Live Nation-Ticketmaster lawsuit. First, this paper details the 2010 LiveNation/Ticketmaster merger, the extensive criticism of this merger, and the terms of the merger. Second, this paper delves into the relevant history of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the evolution and enforcement of antitrust and monopoly law in the last one hundred years. Additionally, to illustrate the scope of anticompetitive behavior and ways in which past antitrust cases have been prosecuted, the paper examines several notable cases concerning Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Third, this paper explores the recent shift in approach, characterized by the New Brandeis movement, to antitrust law and the broader debate surrounding the purpose and scope of antitrust enforcement. Lastly, this paper seeks to situate the Live Nation-Ticketmaster lawsuit in the context of this debate and analyze the implications and potential outcomes of this suit. Ultimately, this paper seeks to show that the DOJ’s original approval of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in 2010 with behavioral remedies was inadequate in preventing anticompetitive practices and protecting consumer interests, and that structural remedies (such as breaking up the company) are necessary to restore effective competition in the live entertainment industry. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger in 2010 and its subsequent negative impact on consumers and the live entertainment industry serve as an excellent example to illustrate the insufficient nature of the traditional consumer welfare-focused antitrust enforcement in addressing the complexities of modern markets, particularly in industries like live entertainment where vertical integration can lead to subtle forms of anticompetitive behavior. By examining how Live Nation's market power is reinforced through its data advantages and “flywheel” business model, this paper demonstrates why traditional antitrust frameworks struggle to address such modern competitive dynamics. Ultimately, this paper argues that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case demonstrates the need for a broader interpretation and more aggressive enforcement approach of antitrust law, aligning with the New Brandeis approach. II. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Merger: Antitrust Considerations and Regulatory Response In 2010, Live Nation, the world’s largest concert promoter, merged with Ticketmaster, the world’s dominant ticketing platform. At the time of the merger, Ticketmaster held an effective monopoly in the ticket sales market, with an estimated 80% market share for concerts in large venues. In 2008, Live Nation launched its own ticketing platform, positioning itself as a rival to Ticketmaster by offering competitive pricing, leveraging its existing relationships with venues and artists, and promising to reduce service fees. This direct competition in ticketing, combined with Live Nation's dominant position in concert promotion, posed a significant threat to Ticketmaster's monopoly, which the merger would eliminate. Critics argued that the merger would lead to higher ticket prices, reduced competition, and a worse experience for consumers. In his 2009 testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Senior Fellow for the American Progress Action Fund David Balto said, “Eliminating a nascent competitor by acquisition raises the most serious antitrust concerns…By acquiring Ticketmaster, Live Nation will cut off the air supply for any future rival to challenge its monopoly in the ticket distribution market.” Despite this widespread criticism of the proposed merger and its potential consequences, the DOJ approved the merger. However, the DOJ still recognized the potential threats and consumer criticism of the merger. In response to these concerns, the DOJ referred to the limits of antitrust enforcement, noting that the DOJ’s role is to prevent anticompetitive harms from mergers, not to remake industries or address all consumer complaints. In a speech delivered on March 18th, 2010, titled “The Ticketmaster/Live Nation Merger Review and Consent Decree in Perspective,” Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Christine A Varney said: “Our concern is with competitive market structure, so our job is to prevent the anticompetitive harms that a merger presents. That is a limited role: whatever we might want a particular market to look like, a merger does not provide us an open invitation to remake an industry or a firm’s business model to make it more consumer friendly…In the course of investigating this merger, we heard many complaints about trends in the live music industry, and many complaints from consumers about Ticketmaster. I understand that people view Ticketmaster’s charges, and perhaps all ticketing fees in general, as unfair, too high, inescapable, and confusing. We heard that it is impossible to understand the litany of fees and why those fees have proliferated. I also understand that consolidation has been going on in the industry for some time and the resultant economic pressures facing local management companies and promoters. Those are meaningful concerns, but many of them are not antitrust concerns. If they come from a lack of effective competition, then we hope to treat them as symptoms as we seek to cure the underlying disease. Where such issues concern consumer fairness, however, they are better addressed by other federal agencies.” Varney’s statement delineates a narrow view of the DOJ's role in merger review, focusing primarily on preventing specific antitrust violations rather than addressing broader consumer concerns or industry trends. This approach suggests that the DOJ saw its mandate as limited to addressing anticompetitive harms directly related to the merger, rather than using the merger review process to address wider industry problems or consumer dissatisfaction that fall outside the scope of antitrust law. The merger itself included both horizontal (direct competitors merging) and vertical (different levels of supply chain merging) integration concerns. The DOJ approved the merger with certain conditions: Ticketmaster had to sell Paciolan (its self-ticketing company), Ticketmaster had to license its software to Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), and most importantly, LiveNation was prohibited from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services. In the merger settlement, the DOJ stated that they would monitor compliance with the agreement for ten years and establish an Order Compliance Committee to receive reports of concerning behavior from industry players. The DOJ also emphasized the importance of industry participation in monitoring and reporting potential violations of the agreement or antitrust laws. These conditions were intended to address the most immediate competitive concerns raised by the merger. Thus, the DOJ primarily relied on behavioral remedies rather than structural changes, an approach that would later be criticized as insufficient to prevent anticompetitive practices. Structural changes, in contrast, could have involved more drastic measures such as requiring the divestiture of certain business units, breaking up the merged entity into separate companies, or imposing limitations on the company's ability to operate in multiple segments of the live entertainment industry. These types of structural remedies aim to fundamentally alter the company's market position and capabilities, rather than merely regulating its behavior. In addition, the reliance on industry self-reporting and time-limited monitoring also raised questions about the long-term effectiveness of these measures. In retrospect, the DOJ’s approach to the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger exemplifies the limitations of traditional antitrust enforcement in addressing complex, vertically integrated industries. By focusing on narrow, immediate competitive effects and relying heavily on behavioral remedies, the DOJ underestimated the long-term impact of the merger on market dynamics in the live entertainment industry. This case would later become a touchstone in debates about the adequacy of existing antitrust frameworks and the need for more comprehensive approaches to merger review and enforcement. III. The Sherman Act and the Evolution of Antitrust Jurisprudence The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was a landmark piece of legislation that emerged from the economic and political turmoil of the late 19th century’s Gilded Age. This era saw rapid industrialization and the rise of powerful trusts and monopolies that dominated key industries such as oil, steel, and railroads. These business entities, through their immense economic power, were able to stifle competition, manipulate prices, and exert immense influence on the political process. Public outcry against these practices grew, with farmers, small business owners, and laborers demanding government action to curb corporate excess. In response to these concerns, the Sherman Act became the first federal legislation to outlaw monopolistic business practices, particularly by prohibiting trusts. A trust in this context was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies would transfer their shares to a single set of trustees, receiving in exchange a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. This structure allowed for the concentration of economic power that the Act sought to prevent. The Sherman Act outlawed all contracts and conspiracies that unreasonably restrained interstate and foreign trade. Its authors believed that an efficient free market system was only possible with robust competition. While the Act targeted trusts, it also addressed monopolies – markets where a single company controls an entire industry. While the Sherman Act broadly addresses anticompetitive practices, Section 2 is particularly relevant to analyze the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case as it directly pertains to monopolization. Section 2 of the Sherman Act specifically prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracies to monopolize. Essentially, it outlaws the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through unfair practices. However, it’s important to note that the purpose of Section 2 is not to eliminate monopolies entirely, but rather to promote a market-based economy and preserve competition. This nuanced approach taken by Section 2 recognizes that some monopolies may arise from superior business acumen or innovation, and only seeks to prevent those achieved or maintained through anticompetitive means. The Sherman Act laid the foundation for antitrust law in the United States, reflecting a societal commitment to maintaining competitive markets and limiting the concentration of economic power. Its passage marked a significant shift in the government’s role in regulating business practices and shaping the economic landscape. While the Sherman Act laid the groundwork for antitrust law in the United States, it was supplemented by two important pieces of legislation in 1914: the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Clayton Act expanded on the Sherman Act by prohibiting specific anticompetitive practices such as price discrimination, exclusive dealing contracts, tying arrangements, and mergers that substantially lessen competition. The Federal Trade Commission Act created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent regulatory agency to prevent unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts or practices in commerce. Together, these Acts addressed some of the Sherman Act’s limitations and provided more specific guidelines for antitrust enforcement, further solidifying the government’s commitment to maintaining competitive markets. The distinction between the Clayton Act and Sherman Act is particularly relevant to understanding the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case. Section 7 of the Clayton Act governs merger review, requiring pre-emptive intervention to prevent mergers that may substantially lessen competition. In contrast, Section 2 of the Sherman Act addresses anticompetitive conduct by existing monopolists. The 2010 Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger was reviewed under Clayton Act Section 7’s forward-looking standard, while the 2024 case challenges ongoing anticompetitive conduct under Sherman Act Section 2. This dual application of antitrust law to the same company highlights the complementary yet distinct roles of merger review and monopolization enforcement. The early enforcement and interpretation of the Sherman Act were shaped by landmark cases that helped define the scope and application of antitrust law. In Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911), the Supreme Court established the “rule of reason” approach to analyzing antitrust violations. This case resulted in the breakup of Standard Oil, demonstrating the Act’s power to dismantle monopolies. The Court held that only “unreasonable” restraints of trade were prohibited, introducing a more limited interpretation of the Act. The “rule of reason” approach meant that the Court would consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether a particular restraint of trade was unreasonable. The case also established that the Sherman Act should be interpreted in light of its broad policy goals rather than strictly construed. This approach had a significant impact on future antitrust enforcement. It allowed for a more flexible and adaptive application of the Act, enabling courts and regulators to address new forms of anticompetitive behavior as markets evolved. This interpretive framework empowered enforcers to look beyond the literal text of the Act and consider the overarching aims of promoting competition and protecting consumer welfare. As a result, antitrust enforcement could more effectively respond to changing economic conditions and business practices, particularly as industries became more complex and interconnected in the 20th century. Later, in United States v. Alcoa (1945), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit further refined the interpretation of the Sherman Act. Judge Learned Hand’s opinion clarified that merely possessing monopoly power is not illegal; rather, the Act prohibits the deliberate acquisition or maintenance of that power through exclusionary practices. Alcoa thus established an important distinction between achieving monopoly through superior skill, foresight, and industry, which is lawful, and maintaining it through anticompetitive conduct, which violates the Act. These cases illustrate the evolving understanding of the Sherman Act, moving from a strict interpretation to a more nuanced approach that considered market dynamics and the effects of business practices on competition. The mid-20th century saw a significant shift in antitrust enforcement characterized by a structural approach that focused on market concentration and firm size. This era, roughly spanning from the late 1930s to the early 1960s, was characterized by a prevailing view among federal antitrust authorities, economists, and policymakers that high market concentration was inherently harmful to competition. The passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950, which strengthened merger control, exemplified this approach. Influenced by economists from the Harvard School of industrial organization, particularly Joe Bain, antitrust authorities presumed that market structure determined conduct and performance. This “structure-conduct-performance” paradigm, central to the Harvard School's approach, posited that industry structure (like concentration levels) directly influenced firm behavior and market outcomes. This led to aggressive enforcement actions, including the breakup of large firms and the blocking of mergers that would have significantly increased market concentration. However, by the mid-1960s, antitrust thinking began to evolve, considering both market structure and firm conduct. This shift was reflected in the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case United States v. Grinnell Corp. , which established the modern two-part test for monopolization. The Grinnell test requires proof of both “the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market” and “the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” This test, while still considering market power, introduced a focus on how that power was obtained or maintained. While the earlier era did consider power acquisition to some extent, the Grinnell test formalized and emphasized this aspect. It required a more comprehensive examination of a firm’s conduct and its effects on competition, moving beyond the primarily structural approach that often presumed anticompetitive effects from high market concentration alone. The Grinnell test has since been widely applied in monopolization cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, reflecting a more nuanced approach that aims to preserve competition without necessarily eliminating all monopolies. This evolution in antitrust enforcement demonstrates a move towards balancing concerns about market structure with considerations of firm conduct and efficiency. However, this balanced approach would soon give way to a more dramatic shift in antitrust philosophy that prioritized economic efficiency above other considerations. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Chicago School of Economics profoundly influenced the trajectory and scope of antitrust law and policy in the United States. This approach, led by economists and legal scholars such as Robert Bork, Richard Posner, and George Stigler, represented a significant shift in antitrust thinking. The Chicago School advocated for the “consumer welfare” standard as the primary goal of antitrust policy. This approach focused on economic efficiency and lower prices for consumers, rather than protecting competitors or maintaining a particular market structure. They argued that many practices previously considered anticompetitive could actually benefit consumers through increased efficiency. For example, Chicago School theorists argued that many mergers, even those that increased market concentration, could lead to efficiencies that benefit consumers. These efficiencies could manifest in several ways: through economies of scale that reduce production costs and potentially lower prices; through improved resource allocation that enhances product quality or variety; or through increased innovation. The Chicago School contended that these efficiency gains could outweigh potential negative effects of increased market concentration, ultimately resulting in net benefits for consumers in the form of lower prices, better products, or increased innovation. This led to a more lenient approach to DOJ merger review, with a higher bar for proving that a merger would harm competition. Vertical mergers (between companies at different levels of the supply chain) were viewed particularly favorably, as they were seen as potentially efficiency-enhancing. The Chicago School was skeptical of claims that vertical integration or vertical restraints (like exclusive dealing arrangements) were inherently anticompetitive. They argued that these practices often had pro-competitive justifications and should be judged based on their economic effects rather than per se rules. The Chicago School was driven by a strong belief in the self-correcting nature of markets. This thinking greatly influenced antitrust enforcement agencies and courts during the Reagan administration and beyond. It led to a significant reduction in antitrust enforcement actions and a higher bar for proving anticompetitive harm. This shift represented a move away from the structural approach of the mid-20th century towards a more economics-focused, effects-based analysis of competitive harm. Antitrust attorney William Markham offers a scathing critique of the consumer welfare standard’s impact on antitrust enforcement. He argues that since the late 1970s, courts have adopted increasingly restrictive antitrust doctrines based on this standard, which he views as misnamed and harmful to consumers. Markham contends that these doctrines have allowed various forms of monopolistic and anticompetitive practices to flourish unchecked. He states that the standard permits such practices “so long as the offenders take care not to charge prices that are demonstrably and provably supracompetitive.” This critique highlights how the narrow focus on consumer prices under the consumer welfare standard may overlook other forms of competitive harm. It’s important to understand this context when examining more recent developments and debates in antitrust law, including the challenges posed by digital markets and the arguments of the New Brandeis movement. IV. Judicial Interpretation of Section 2: Key Cases and Anticompetitive Practices To better understand how Section 2 of the Sherman Act has been applied in practice, it’s important to examine key antitrust cases that have shaped its interpretation and enforcement. These cases not only illustrate various types of anti-competitive practices but also demonstrate the evolution of antitrust thinking, particularly the rising influence of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard and subsequent challenges to this approach. Anticompetitive practices can take many forms, including refusals to deal, predatory pricing, tying, and exclusive dealing arrangements. Their legality often depends on specific facts, market conditions, and the prevailing economic theories of the time. This section examines several landmark cases that highlight these practices and trace the trajectory of antitrust law from the mid-1980s through the early 2000s, a period marked by significant shifts in antitrust philosophy and enforcement approaches. The 1985 Supreme Court case Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. marked a significant development in antitrust law’s approach to refusal to deal practices, a type of anticompetitive behavior where a firm with market power declines to do business with a competitor. The case involved Aspen Skiing Company, which owned three of four ski areas in Aspen, CO, discontinuing a long-standing joint lift ticket program with Aspen Highlands, the owner of the fourth area. While the Chicago School approachgenerally viewed refusals to deal as permissible, the Court in this case took a different stance. It ruled that this refusal to continue a voluntary cooperative venture could violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as it lacked any normal business justification and appeared designed to eliminate competition. This decision, occurring early in the ascendancy of the Chicago School, demonstrated a willingness to consider factors beyond short-term consumer welfare in antitrust analysis. Justice Stevens’ opinion emphasized the importance of intent in determining whether conduct is “exclusionary,” “anticompetitive,” or “predatory,” introducing a more contextualized approach to assessing market behavior. While not fully embracing the consumer welfare standard, the Court did consider the impact on consumers, noting that the joint ticket was popular and its elimination inconvenienced skiers. This case thus represents a crucial step in the evolution of antitrust law, bridging the gap between earlier, more aggressive interpretations of the Sherman Act and the more economics-focused analyses that would follow. It expanded the scope of antitrust enforcement by establishing that, in some cases, even a unilateral refusal to deal could be considered anticompetitive. Aspen Skiing set the stage for later cases dealing with complex market dynamics, particularly in industries where control over key resources or platforms can significantly impact competition – a concept that becomes increasingly relevant in the digital age and in cases like the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger. As antitrust thinking continued to evolve, the influence of the Chicago School became more pronounced, as evidenced in subsequent landmark cases. This shift was reinforced by changes in the Supreme Court’s composition during the 1970s and 1980s, with appointments by Presidents Nixon and Reagan bringing more conservative justices to the bench who were often sympathetic to Chicago School economic theories. This changing court composition, coupled with the growing academic influence of the Chicago School, contributed to the changes in antitrust jurisprudence. The 1993 Supreme Court case Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. marked a significant move in the treatment of predatory pricing claims, reflecting the growing dominance of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard. Predatory pricing occurs when a firm prices its products below cost with the intention of driving competitors out of the market, allowing the predator to later raise prices and recoup its losses. In this case, the Brooke Group accused Brown & Williamson of predatory pricing in the generic cigarette market. The Court established a two-pronged test for predatory pricing: (1) the plaintiff must prove that the prices are below an appropriate measure of cost, and (2) the plaintiff must demonstrate that the predator had a “reasonable prospect” of recouping its losses. This stringent standard, making predatory pricing claims extremely difficult to prove, clearly reflects the Chicago School’s skepticism towards such claims against firms. The Court’s reasoning prioritized short-term consumer benefits (lower prices) over long-term competitive concerns, embodying the consumer welfare standard. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion explicitly cited Chicago School scholars, demonstrating how economic theory had come to dominate antitrust jurisprudence. This case illustrates how the Chicago School approach narrowed the scope of antitrust enforcement, potentially allowing some anticompetitive practices to escape scrutiny if they resulted in short-term consumer benefits. In the context of cases like Live Nation-Ticketmaster, this ruling underscores the challenges in proving anticompetitive behavior when short-term consumer benefits are present. The rise of the digital economy in the late 1990s and early 2000s presented new challenges to antitrust enforcement, leading to a reconsideration of established doctrines. While the Chicago School’s influence remained strong, the emergence of new technologies and business models began to test the limits of its consumer welfare-focused approach. The United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001) case marked a pivotal moment in antitrust law’s application to the emerging digital economy, introducing new considerations for tying and monopoly maintenance in software markets. Tying occurs when a company requires customers who purchase one product to also purchase a separate product, potentially leveraging dominance in one market to gain advantage in another. The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly in the PC operating systems market by tying its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system and engaging in exclusionary contracts with PC manufacturers and Internet service providers. This case challenged the Chicago School's typically permissive view of tying arrangements, which often saw them as enhancing efficiency from a consumer welfare standpoint. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Microsoft had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, finding that Microsoft’s practices, in aggregate, served to maintain its monopoly power by stifling competition from potential disruptors like Netscape’s browser and Sun’s Java technologies. While the court’s analysis still employed the consumer welfare standard, it showed a willingness to consider a broader range of anticompetitive effects, including harm to innovation and potential future competition. This approach reflected a nuanced evolution of antitrust thinking, acknowledging the unique characteristics of software markets and the rapid pace of technological change. Microsoft set important precedents for how antitrust law could be applied to fast-moving technology markets and platform economies, influencing later cases involving tech giants and potentially informing the analysis of platform-based businesses like Live Nation-Ticketmaster. It demonstrated that even in the era of Chicago School dominance, courts could adapt antitrust principles to address new forms of market power in the digital age. The resulting settlement, which imposed behavioral remedies rather than structural ones, sparked ongoing debates about the adequacy of traditional antitrust tools in addressing the unique characteristics of digital markets. Despite the more comprehensive and context-specific approach in Microsoft , the influence of the Chicago School remained strong, as demonstrated in the next significant case. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (2004) significantly narrowed the scope of antitrust liability for refusal to deal, revisiting and limiting the principles established in Aspen Skiing . In this case, Trinko, a law firm and Verizon customer, alleged that Verizon had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by providing insufficient assistance to new competitors in the local telephone service market, as required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled in favor of Verizon, significantly limiting the circumstances under which a refusal to deal could violate antitrust law. Unlike in Aspen Skiing , where there was a history of voluntary cooperation, the Court emphasized that firms, even monopolists, generally have no duty to assist competitors. This ruling clearly reflects the Chicago School’s skepticism towards government intervention in markets and its focus on efficiency over other competitive concerns. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing firms to freely choose their business partners, arguing that forced cooperation could reduce companies’ incentives to invest and innovate. This aligns with the Chicago School’s concern about “false positives” in antitrust enforcement – the idea that overly aggressive antitrust action might mistakenly punish pro-competitive behavior, potentially discouraging beneficial business practices. By setting a high bar for refusal to deal claims, the Trinko decision further constrained the reach of antitrust law, potentially allowing monopolists more leeway in their dealings with competitors. By setting a high bar for refusal to deal claims, the Trinko decision further constrained the reach of antitrust law, potentially allowing monopolists more leeway in their dealings with competitors. This legal environment, which emphasized a narrow interpretation of anticompetitive behavior, set the stage for future mergers that consolidated market power across related industries. The 2010 approval of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger is a prime example of how this permissive approach to antitrust enforcement allowed for the creation of a vertically integrated entity with unprecedented control over the live entertainment industry. This case exemplifies how the Chicago School approach may have inadvertently created blind spots in antitrust enforcement, particularly regarding the long-term effects of monopoly power on innovation and competition. These cases collectively demonstrate the complex evolution of Section 2 application across various industries and business practices. From the nuanced approach in Aspen Skiing , through the height of Chicago School influence in Brooke Group and Trinko , to the adaptation to new technological challenges in Microsoft , they illustrate how antitrust law has grappled with changing economic theories and market realities. The cases show a clear trajectory of increasing influence of the Chicago School’s consumer welfare standard, but also reveal moments of resistance or adaptation to this approach when confronted with novel market dynamics. The Microsoft case, in particular, marks a significant point in this evolution, demonstrating how courts began to recognize the unique challenges posed by the digital economy. By examining these cases, it is possible to trace how the interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has shifted over time, reflecting changing economic theories and market realities. This evolution provides crucial context for understanding current debates about antitrust enforcement, particularly in rapidly evolving digital markets, and sets the stage for the emergence of new approaches like the New Brandeis movement. In considering the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case, this historical context helps to understand the complex landscape of antitrust enforcement and the challenges in addressing anticompetitive behavior today. V. The New Brandeis Movement: Redefining Antitrust for the Modern Era The landscape of antitrust enforcement is undergoing a fundamental shift as new perspectives challenge long-held assumptions about competition law. The limitations of the Chicago School approach, particularly evident in cases like Microsoft and Trinko , have sparked a reimagining of antitrust’s fundamental purposes and tools. As University of Michigan Law Professor Daniel Crane noted recently, “the bipartisan consensus that antitrust should solely focus on economic efficiency and consumer welfare has quite suddenly come under attack from prominent voices [from the political left and right] calling for a dramatically enhanced role for antitrust law in mediating a variety of social, economic, and political friction points, including employment, wealth inequality, data privacy and security, and democratic values.” At the heart of this antitrust approach evolution lies a debate between the traditional consumer welfare-focused approach and the emerging New Brandeis movement. For decades, the standard approach has emphasized consumer welfare as the primary goal, focusing on economic efficiency and preventing practices that directly harm consumers through higher prices, reduced output, or decreased innovation. This framework has generally led to a more permissive attitude toward mergers and a higher bar for finding antitrust violations. In contrast, the New Brandeis movement, championed by figures like FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan, advocates for a broader understanding of antitrust law’s goals. This perspective, sometimes critically dubbed “hipster antitrust,” contends that enforcement should consider additional factors such as market structure, the distribution of economic power, and the impact on workers, small businesses, and political democracy. The movement’s proponents have been particularly vocal about the need to reassess antitrust approaches in the context of the digital economy, expressing concern over the power wielded by large tech platforms. Lina Khan, a prominent figure in contemporary antitrust discourse, has developed an extensive body of work articulating the principles of the New Brandeis movement. In her article “The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate,” Khan outlines this approach, which draws inspiration from Justice Louis Brandeis’s support of “America’s Madisonian traditions—which aim at a democratic distribution of power and opportunity in the political economy.” The movement represents a significant departure from the Chicago School of antitrust thinking. While the Chicago School emphasized efficiency, prices, and consumer welfare, the New Brandeis approach advocates for a return to a market structure-oriented competition policy. Key tenets include viewing economic power as intrinsically tied to political power, recognizing that some industries naturally tend towards monopoly and require regulation, emphasizing the structures and processes of competition rather than just outcomes, and rejecting the notion of natural market “forces” naturally leading to optimal economic outcomes or consumer welfare, instead understanding markets as fundamentally shaped and structured by law and policy. In her article “The Ideological Roots of America’s Market Power Problem,” Khan further critiques the current antitrust framework, arguing that it has weakened enforcement and allowed high concentration of market power across sectors. She asserts that addressing this issue requires challenging the ideological underpinnings of the current framework, writing, “Identifying paths for greater enforcement within a framework that systematically disfavors enforcement will fall short of addressing the scope of the market power problem we face today.” Ultimately, Khan and other New Brandeis proponents argue for a fundamental rethinking of antitrust’s goals and methods, advocating a return to its original purpose of distributing economic power and preserving democratic values. Building upon her critique of current antitrust frameworks, Khan has written extensively about the unique challenges posed by big tech companies, arguing that traditional enforcement methods are inadequate to address their market power. In her influential article “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” Khan contends that the current antitrust framework is ill-equipped to tackle the anticompetitive effects of digital platforms like Amazon. These platforms, she argues, can leverage their market power and access to data to engage in predatory pricing, disadvantage rivals, and entrench their dominance. Khan writes in the abstract, “This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to ‘consumer welfare,’ defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output.” The article explains that despite Amazon’s massive growth, it generates low profits, often pricing products below cost and focusing on expansion rather than short-term gains. This strategy has allowed Amazon to expand far beyond retail, becoming a major player in various sectors including marketing, publishing, entertainment, hardware manufacturing, and cloud computing. Khan argues that this positions Amazon as a critical platform for many other businesses. She further elaborates, “First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.” Khan argues that in platform markets like Amazon's, predatory pricing can be rational even if product prices appear to be at market rates. This is because the goal is not immediate profit, but rather to rapidly expand market share and establish dominance. The company can sustain short-term losses or razor-thin margins on product sales because the real value lies in becoming the dominant platform, which can lead to long-term profitability through various means such as data collection. Traditional antitrust doctrine, however, often assumes that below-cost pricing is irrational unless the company can quickly recoup its losses through higher prices, which may not apply in these complex, multi-sided markets. This creates a “paradox” where Amazon’s practices may be anticompetitive, yet they escape scrutiny under existing regulations. To address Amazon’s market power, one of Khan’s major suggestions includes restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles to its more structure-oriented approach. Khan’s influential academic critiques of current antitrust frameworks, particularly her analysis of Amazon’s market power, laid the groundwork for her approach as FTC chair, where she has sought to translate these ideas into concrete enforcement actions. Since Lina Khan’s appointment as chair of the FTC in 2021 by President Joe Biden, the agency has embarked on a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, challenging some of America’s largest corporations and implementing significant policy shifts. This new direction has yielded mixed results and sparked debates about the future of competition policy in the United States. Khan’s FTC has increased scrutiny of Big Tech, filing an amended antitrust complaint against Facebook (Meta) that challenges its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and suing to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing competition concerns in the video game industry. The agency has also initiated actions against other tech giants like Amazon. Under Khan’s leadership, the FTC has implemented stricter merger enforcement, including a more aggressive approach to reviewing mergers, particularly vertical mergers. The agency withdrew the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines, signaling skepticism towards vertical integration, and revised merger guidelines in collaboration with the Department of Justice. There’s also been an increased focus on “killer acquisitions” where large companies buy potential competitors. Khan has emphasized structural remedies over behavioral ones, advocating for more dramatic interventions like breaking up companies in certain cases. Additionally, recognizing the growing importance of data as a competitive asset, the FTC has integrated privacy and data protection concerns into its antitrust approach. For instance, the agency pursued a case against data broker Kochava for selling sensitive geolocation data, highlighting how control over user data can contribute to market power and potentially anticompetitive practices in the digital economy. The implementation of Khan’s approach has seen both successes and setbacks. Partial victories include the FTC v. Facebook (Meta) case, where the court allowed a revised complaint to proceed, and the FTC v. Illumina/Grail case, where the agency successfully challenged a vertical merger, albeit on largely traditional antitrust grounds. However, the FTC faced a setback when its attempt to block Meta’s acquisition of Within Unlimited was rejected. Ongoing challenges persist as courts have shown varying degrees of receptiveness to the expanded view of antitrust harm. As of April 2024, there had been no definitive high-level court ruling fully endorsing or rejecting the New Brandeis approach, with many decisions still relying heavily on the consumer welfare standard. Khan also faces political opposition and challenges to her rule-making initiatives. While Khan has successfully shifted the FTC’s focus towards more aggressive antitrust enforcement and brought increased attention to issues like data privacy and labor market effects, the legal and practical adoption of the New Brandeis philosophy remains a work in progress. The evolving legal landscape sets the stage for analyzing how future cases, such as potential actions against Ticketmaster, might proceed under this new, more expansive view of antitrust enforcement. VI. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Case: A Critical Analysis of Market Power and Competitive Effects In May 2024, the DOJ, in addition to 30 state and district attorneys general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Ticketmaster “for monopolization and other unlawful conduct that thwarts competition in markets across the live entertainment industry.” More specifically, the DOJ accused Live Nation for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In a subsequent press release, the DOJ highlighted several key issues resulting from Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s conduct. The DOJ argued that the company’s practices have led to a lack of innovation in ticketing, higher prices for U.S. consumers compared to other countries, and the use of outdated technology. Further, the DOJ asserted that Live Nation-Ticketmaster “exercises its power over performers, venues, and independent promoters in ways that harm competition” and “imposes barriers to competition that limit the entry and expansion of its rivals.” The lawsuit, which calls for structural relief – primarily the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster – aims to reintroduce competition in the live concert industry, offer fans better options at more affordable prices, and create more opportunities for musicians and other performers at venues. The DOJ claims Live Nation-Ticketmaster uses a “flywheel” business model that self-reinforces its market dominance. This model involves using revenue from fans and sponsorships to secure exclusive deals with artists and venues, creating a cycle that excludes competitors. The complaint outlines several anti-competitive practices, including: partnering with potential rival Oak View Group to avoid competition, threatening retaliation against venues working with competitors, using long-term exclusive contracts with venues, restricting artists’ venue access unless they use Live Nation’s promotion services, and acquiring smaller competitors. The DOJ argues these practices create barriers for rivals to compete fairly. Live Nation Entertainment is the world’s largest live entertainment company, controlling numerous venues and generating over $22 billion in annual revenue globally. The DOJ’s action aims to address these alleged monopolistic practices in the live entertainment industry. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said, “We contend that Live Nation uses illegal and anti-competitive methods to dominate the live events industry in the U.S., negatively impacting fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators. This dominance leads to higher fees for fans, fewer concert opportunities for artists, reduced chances for smaller promoters, and limited ticketing options for venues. It’s time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster.” Beyond traditional market control, Live Nation’s monopolistic position is further entrenched by its significant data advantages, which raise additional competitive and privacy concerns. Through its ticketing operations and venue management, Live Nation amasses vast amounts of consumer data, including purchasing habits, musical preferences, and demographic information. This data not only enhances Live Nation’s ability to target marketing and adjust pricing strategies but also creates a major barrier to entry for potential competitors who lack access to such comprehensive consumer insights. Moreover, the company’s control over this data raises privacy concerns, as consumers may have limited understanding of how their information is being used or shared across Live Nation’s various business segments. These issues mirror broader debates in the digital age about the role of data in maintaining market power, with parallels to concerns raised about tech giants like Google and Facebook. As such, any antitrust action against Live Nation must consider not only traditional measures of market power but also the competitive advantages and potential privacy implications of its data practices. This aspect of the case underscores the need for antitrust enforcement to evolve in response to the increasing importance of data in modern business models. Notably, the DOJ focuses on Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s anticompetitive tactic of threatening and retaliating against venues that work with rivals. In the press release, the DOJ writes, “Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s power in concert promotions means that every live concert venue knows choosing another promoter or ticketer comes with a risk of drawing an adverse reaction from Live Nation-Ticketmaster that would result in losing concerts, revenue, and fans.” This directly violates the terms of the 2010 merger agreement, in which LiveNation was prohibited from retaliating against venues that use competing ticketing services. Considering that the current lawsuit’s main goal is the breakup of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, there exists an undeniable irony that the DOJ is seeking to undo their own actions (approving the merger in 2010). The head of Jones Day’s antitrust practice Craig Waldman said, “The DOJ is breaking out a really big gun here — seeking to blow up a company that was created with its approval. That looms large even though the DOJ has and will continue to try to frame Live Nation’s conduct as going well beyond the scope of the merger.” In hindsight, it is clear that the DOJ’s approval of the 2010 merger was an egregious mistake. Vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute Diana Moss said, “The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger was allowed to proceed in 2010, but the decision was an abject failure of antitrust enforcement. Instead of blocking the merger, the DOJ required the company, then with an 80% share of the ticketing market, to comply with ineffective conditions.” The continued anticompetitive practices and market dominance of Live Nation-Ticketmaster after the approved merger demonstrate that behavioral remedies were insufficient to protect competition. As such, structural remedies, specifically breaking up the company, are necessary to restore competition in the live entertainment industry. That extensive pushback and criticism of the merger took place at the time of its approval highlights the limited scope and approach of antitrust enforcement, particularly when it comes to mergers. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case will proceed in New York’s Southern District, known for its slow litigation process, potentially delaying a trial until late 2026. In its defense, Live Nation argues that it does not hold a monopoly, claiming that its profit margins are low and that ticket prices are influenced more by factors like artist popularity and secondary ticketing markets than by its own practices. Live Nation contends that the efficiencies achieved by merging with Ticketmaster benefit the industry by offering better services and prices compared to separating the companies. The company emphasizes that its vertical integration—combining promotion and ticketing services—creates a more efficient and artist-friendly business model. Live Nation also asserts that the secondary ticketing market, rather than its own practices, is primarily responsible for high ticket prices. The case will scrutinize whether the efficiencies claimed by Live Nation justify its market control or if the harm to competition outweighs these benefits. The DOJ’s push for a breakup, and refusal to settle for anything less than a breakup, reflects the relative success of the New Brandeis movement, particularly when considering the FTC’s revised merger guidelines in collaboration with the DOJ. When analyzed through the lens of the Grinnell test, Live Nation’s conduct clearly meets both prongs for monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. First, Live Nation undoubtedly possesses monopoly power in the relevant markets of concert promotion and ticketing. With an estimated 80% market share in ticketing for major concert venues and its dominant position in concert promotion, Live Nation far exceeds the typical thresholds courts have used to identify monopoly power. The company’s ability to impose high fees, dictate terms to artists and venues, and persistently maintain its market position despite widespread consumer dissatisfaction further evidences its monopoly power. Second, Live Nation has willfully acquired and maintained this power through exclusionary practices, not merely through superior products or business acumen. The DOJ’s complaint outlines numerous anti competitive tactics, including threatening retaliation against venues that use competing services, leveraging its control over artists to pressure venues, and using long-term exclusive contracts to lock out competitors. These practices go well beyond legitimate competition based on merit. Moreover, Live Nation strategic acquisitions of potential competitors and its alleged collusion with Oak View Group to avoid competition further demonstrate its willful maintenance of monopoly power. The company’s “flywheel” business model, while potentially efficient, serves to entrench its dominance across multiple markets in ways that foreclose competition. Thus, Live Nation’s conduct satisfies both prongs of the Grinnell test, strongly supporting the DOJ’s case for illegal monopolization. It’s important to note, however, that while the Grinnell test remains a fundamental framework cited in monopolization cases, its application in modern antitrust law has evolved and become more nuanced. In recent decades, courts have increasingly used the Grinnell test as a starting point rather than a definitive standard. The test is now supplemented with more sophisticated economic analyses. Therefore, while the Grinnell test will likely be referenced in the Live Nation case, the court's analysis is expected to be more comprehensive, potentially incorporating more recent precedents and economic theories to fully capture the nuances of Live Nation’s market position and conduct. The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case illuminates several fundamental limitations in current antitrust doctrine. First, the case demonstrates how the Chicago School’s permissive approach to vertical mergers, embedded in Clayton Act enforcement, systematically underestimates the long-term competitive threats posed by vertical integration in platform markets. Second, the case exposes the inherent weakness of behavioral remedies in addressing vertical merger concerns. The failure of the 2010 settlement’s behavioral conditions—despite their specificity and ongoing oversight—suggests that such remedies are fundamentally inadequate for controlling the conduct of vertically integrated firms with substantial market power. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the case reveals the challenging burden facing regulators under Section 2 of the Sherman Act once a vertically integrated entity has established market dominance. Even with clear evidence of exclusionary conduct, proving harm under current Section 2 doctrine requires navigating complex questions about market definition and competitive effects that may not fully capture the subtle ways in which vertical integration can entrench market power. The Consumer Welfare Standard, which has dominated antitrust analysis since the 1980s, is inadequate in fully capturing the anticompetitive harm caused by Live Nation’s practices. While this standard primarily focuses on consumer prices and output, it fails to account for the multifaceted nature of competition in the live entertainment industry. Certainly, the high ticket prices and fees imposed by Live Nation are relevant concerns under this framework. However, this narrow focus obscures the broader and more insidious effects of Live Nation’s market dominance. For instance, the standard doesn’t adequately address the reduced choices faced by venues, who often feel compelled to contract with Live Nation for fear of losing access to popular acts. Similarly, it fails to capture the constraints placed on artists, who may find their touring options limited by Live Nation’s control over major venues and promotion services. The standard also struggles to account for the barriers to entry the industry created by Live Nation’s vertically integrated structure and exclusive contracts, which stifle potential competitors and innovative business models in the ticketing and promotion markets. Moreover, the Consumer Welfare Standard’s short-term focus on prices neglects long-term impacts on innovation, diversity, and the overall health of the live entertainment ecosystem. It fails to account for how one company’s dominance can lead to less diverse music options and harm smaller venues and independent promoters who are crucial for supporting new artists. By focusing mainly on short-term price effects, the standard overlooks the broader, long-term damage to competition in the industry. This limitation of the Consumer Welfare Standard in the Live Nation case underscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to antitrust analysis, one that aligns more closely with the broader concerns of the New Brandeis movement. Building on the limitations of the Consumer Welfare Standard and the evolving application of the Grinnell test, it becomes clear that a more comprehensive approach to antitrust enforcement is necessary in the Live Nation case. The failure of the 2010 behavioral remedies further underscores this need. Despite prohibitions on retaliatory practices and requirements to license ticketing software to competitors, Live Nation has continued to dominate the market and engage in exclusionary conduct. This persistence of anticompetitive behavior, even under regulatory oversight, demonstrates that more robust, structural solutions are required. In retrospect, it is evident that the DOJ should have never approved the merger in the first place, as the vertical integration of Live Nation and Ticketmaster created a entity with unprecedented market power and clear incentives for anticompetitive behavior. In light of these considerations, the DOJ should argue for a full structural separation of Live Nation and Ticketmaster as the primary remedy. This breakup would reintroduce genuine competition into both the concert promotion and ticketing markets, addressing the root causes of Live Nation’s market power more effectively than behavioral conditions. To ensure a competitive landscape post-separation, the court should also consider supplementary measures. These could include prohibiting exclusive deals with venues and imposing limits on the percentage of a market’s concert promotion that Live Nation can control. By advocating for these comprehensive structural changes, the DOJ can align its approach with the more aggressive, market structure-focused enforcement advocated by the New Brandeis movement. This approach not only addresses the immediate concerns in the live entertainment industry but also sets a potential precedent for future antitrust cases in similarly complex, vertically integrated industries. It recognizes that in today’s interconnected markets, protecting competition requires looking beyond short-term price effects to consider the broader ecosystem of industry participants, from artists and venues to emerging competitors and consumers. VII. Conclusion The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case serves as a stark illustration of the inadequacies of traditional antitrust enforcement in addressing the complexities of modern markets. The DOJ’s original approval of the 2010 merger, despite widespread criticism and concerns, highlights the limitations of the consumer welfare-focused approach and the ineffectiveness of behavioral remedies in curbing anti competitive practices. The subsequent dominance of Live Nation in the live entertainment industry, characterized by its “flywheel” business model and alleged exclusionary practices, demonstrates the need for a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. This case represents a critical juncture in the evolution of antitrust law, potentially marking a shift towards the more expansive view advocated by the New Brandeis movement. The DOJ’s pursuit of structural remedies, specifically the breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, signals a recognition that protecting competition in today’s interconnected markets requires looking beyond short-term price effects to consider the broader ecosystem of industry participants. As such, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for future antitrust enforcement, particularly in industries characterized by vertical integration and data-driven market power. It may set a precedent for how antitrust authorities approach complex, multi-faceted monopolies in the digital age, potentially reshaping the landscape of competition law for years to come. Ultimately, the Live Nation case underscores the urgent need for antitrust law to evolve in response to the changing nature of market power, ensuring that it remains an effective tool for promoting competition, innovation, and consumer welfare in the 21st-century economy. References Abad-Santos, Alex. “How Disappointed Taylor Swift Fans Explain Ticketmaster’s Monopoly.” Vox. Last modified November 21, 2022. https://www.vox.com/culture/2022/11/21/23471763/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-monopoly. Abbott, Alden. “Will the Antitrust Lawsuit against Live Nation Break Its Hold on Ticketmaster?” Forbes. Last modified May 28, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/aldenabbott/2024/05/28/will-the-justice-departments-monopolization-lawsuit-kill-live-nation/. Abovyan, Kristina, and Quinn Scanlan. “FTC Is ‘just Getting Started’ as It Takes on Amazon, Meta and More, Chair Lina Khan Says.” ABC News , May 5, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ftc-started-takes-amazon-meta-chair-lina-khan/story?id=109928219. “Antitrust Law Basics – Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Thomas Reuters. Last modified May 17, 2023. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/antitrust-law-basics-section-2-of-the-sherman-act/. “The Antitrust Laws.” U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed December 20, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=The%20Sherman%20Antitrust%20Act,or%20markets%2C%20are%20criminal%20violations. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 JUSTIA (10th Cir. June 19, 1985). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/585/. “A Brief Overview of the ‘New Brandeis’ School of Antitrust Law.” Patterson Belknap. Last modified November 8, 2018. https://www.pbwt.com/antitrust-update-blog/a-brief-overview-of-the-new-brandeis-school-of-antitrust-law. Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 JUSTIA (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 1993). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/209/. “Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act : Chapter 1.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1#:~:text=Section%202%20of%20the%20Sherman%20Act%20makes%20it%20unlawful%20for,foreign%20nations%20.%20.%20.%20.%22. “Court Rejects FTC’s Bid to Block Meta’s Proposed Acquisition of VR Fitness App Developer.” Crowell. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/court-rejects-ftcs-bid-to-block-metas-proposed-acquisition-of-vr-fitness-app-developer. “Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department Release 2023 Merger Guidelines.” Federal Trade Commission. Accessed December 18, 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/12/federal-trade-commission-justice-department-release-2023-merger-guidelines. Hovenkamp, Herbert. “Framing the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School 168, no. 7 (2020). https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3115&context=faculty_scholarship. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. “The Rule of Reason.” Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repositary , 2018. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2780&context=faculty_scholarship. Jones, Callum. “‘She’s Going to Prevail’: FTC Head Lina Khan Is Fighting for an Anti-monopoly America.” The Guardian , March 9, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/09/lina-khan-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-monopolies. Katz, Ariel. “The Chicago School and the Forgotten Political Dimension of Antitrust Law.” The University of Chicago Law Review , 2020. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/chicago-school-and-forgotten-political-dimension-antitrust-law. Khan, Lina. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal 126, no. 3 (2017). https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox. Khan, Lina. “The Ideological Roots of America’s Market Power Problem.” The Yale Law Journal 127 (June 4, 2018). https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ideological-roots-of-americas-market-power-problem. Khan, Lina. “The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9, no. 3 (2018): 131-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy020. Koenig, Bryan. “DOJ Has a Long Set to Play against Live Nation-Ticketmaster.” Law360. Last modified May 23, 2024. https://www.crowell.com/a/web/4TwXzF6sFW49adb3eTjznR/doj-has-a-long-set-to-play-against-live-nation-ticketmaster.pdf. Layton, Roslyn. “Live Nation's Anticompetitive Conduct Is a Problem for Security.” ProMarket. Last modified June 25, 2024. https://www.promarket.org/2024/06/25/live-nations-anticompetitive-conduct-is-a-problem-for-security/. Levine, Jay L. “1990s to the Present: The Chicago School and Antitrust Enforcement.” Porterwright. Last modified June 1, 2021. https://www.antitrustlawsource.com/2021/06/1990s-to-the-present-the-chicago-school-and-antitrust-enforcement/. Markham, William. “How the Consumer-Welfare Standard Transformed Classical Antitrust Law.” Law Offices of William Markham, P.C. Last modified 2021. https://www.markhamlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/How-the-Consumer-Welfare-Standard-Transformed-Classical-Antitrust-Law.final_.pdf. McKenna, Francine. “What Made the Chicago School so Influential in Antitrust Policy?” Chicago Booth Review. Last modified August 7, 2023. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy. Office of Public Affairs - U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets across the Live Concert Industry.” News release. March 23, 2024. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert. “Sherman Antitrust Act.” Britannica. Accessed August 5, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Sherman. “Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890).” National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act. “The Ticketmaster/LiveNation Merger: What Does It Mean for Consumers and the Future of the Concert Business?: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights (2009) (statement of David A. Balto). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/balto_testimony_02_24_09.pdf. Treisman, Rachel. “Taylor Swift Says Her Team Was Assured Ticket Demands Would Be Met for Her Eras Tour.” npr. Last modified November 18, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/17/1137465465/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-klobuchar-tennessee. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 JUSTIA (Apr. 17, 2018). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-2/. “U.S. v. Microsoft: Court’s Findings of Fact.” U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact. Varney, Christine A. “The TicketMaster/Live Nation Merger Review and Consent Decree in Perspective.” Speech presented at South by Southwest, March 18, 2010. U.S. Department of Justice. Last modified March 18, 2010. https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/ticketmasterlive-nation-merger-review-and-consent-decree-perspective. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, 540 JUSTIA (Oct. 2003). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/398/.

The Panacea Problem The Panacea Problem: Indifference, Servility, and Kantian Beneficence Benjamin Eneman Georgetown University April 2021 Kant’s account of the duty of beneficence as a wide, imperfect duty initially seems at odds with our intuitive belief that helping others is, at least in some cases, morally obligatory. Various Kantian philosophical accounts have constructed different ways to address this problem. In this paper, I adopt and expand on Karen Stohr’s account of the duty of beneficence as a two-part duty composed by a wide duty to help others and a narrow duty to avoid indifference. After observing that merely adopting this view seems to result in over-stringency, I then argue that perfect and imperfect duties to others and the self act as counterarguments to claims of indifference. We have obligations to help others. That fact seems almost universally intuitive; it appears quite clear that, at least in some instances, we are somehow morally deficient if we fail to help other people. What is often less clear is the source of such strong obligations, and what sorts of concerns have the capacity to limit them. In this paper, I aim to construct a system of Kantian obligations that define and adequately bound our duty to help others, then consider the implications that system of obligations has on everyday life. I will argue that we should adopt Karen Stohr’s model of beneficence as a two-part duty where the duty to avoid indifference towards others in their role as end-setters is bounded and framed within duties to oneself, particularly duties to avoid servility and to respect one’s own status as a setter of ends. I will briefly summarize Kant’s view before proceeding. Kant divides duties into perfect and imperfect, as well as wide and narrow, categories. Taking Kant’s universal law formulation, if the maxim of a particular action’s very conception cannot be universalized without inherent contradiction, it violates a perfect duty; if the maxim results not in contradiction in conception but rather in contradiction of the will, it violates an imperfect duty. For example, making a false promise to a friend to repay a loan violates a perfect duty, because the concept of lying is only coherent when truth is assumed, and universalizing the maxim that “one ought to lie to a friend in order to get money” would result in a world where that assumption would deteriorate, making the concept of lying incoherent. Alternatively, under Kant’s humanity formulation, perfect duties are violated when someone treats another person as a mere means (fails to show respect for humanity as a negative end), while imperfect duties involve obligations to value and show respect for humanity as setters of ends. Perfect duties are always narrow—they are stringent, and we have an obligation to follow them at all times. Imperfect duties, however, can be broader or narrower, depending on the degree and kinds of latitude afforded to them. Generally speaking, broader duties allow for more variation than narrower duties in how they are achieved and the degree to which they are pursued at any given time. Wide duties leave “playroom (latitudo) for free choice in following the law” and “cannot specify precisely in what way one is to act and how much one is to do by the action,” Kant says, but cautions that they don’t grant carte blanche to “make exceptions to the maxim of actions but only as permission to limit one’s maxim of duty by another.” Consequently, “Fulfillment of [imperfect duties] is merit = +a, but failure to fulfill them is not in itself culpability = -a, but rather mere deficiency in moral worth = 0, unless the subject should make it his principle not to comply with such duties.” In other words, people are standardly praiseworthy for taking actions that fulfill imperfect duties, but are not standardly blameworthy for failing to do so on any particular occasion. At first glance, then, it might seem as if Kantian moral theory does not adequately address the scope of duties of beneficence—obligations to help others. The duty of beneficence is imperfect, since violating it stems from a contradiction in the will. We can conceive of a world in which nobody helps anyone else or adopts others’ ends as their own, but such a world would ultimately result in the frustration of our own ends, and therefore cannot be rationally willed, since one cannot rationally will the frustration or denial of one’s own ends (as doing so would mean willing against what one wills). Because the duty of beneficence is a wide, imperfect duty—one that affords real latitude in the manner and extent to which it is met—it seems difficult to square with intuitive judgements about situations in which one is truly obligated to help another person. For example, in cases of easy rescue (say, a child drowning in a bathtub a foot away from someone able to help) it seems like anyone who does not perform the rescue is displaying immoral behavior rather than simply not displaying moral behavior. It seems like not only do they have a particularly strong sort of obligation to others to help, but also that they are standardly blameworthy for failing to do so even if they do not make it a principle to fail to help in those sorts of instances. If, by some bizarre set of circumstances, I encounter five different children drowning in shallow water in one day, I could not justify not saving the fifth by pointing to the other four I had saved that day to show that it was clearly not my principle to avoid helping drowning children (or people in general). Such an attempted justification would seem absurd for instances similar to this. This is a real problem for proponents of Kantian ethics—it seems as if Kantian moral philosophy is not demanding enough in cases like these. Cases of easy rescue pose a strong (though, I contend, not insurmountable) challenge to latitudinarian accounts of the duty of beneficence (accounts that argue that the duty of beneficence inherently grants latitude in terms of the means by and extent to which it is pursued). Broadly, there seem to be three different approaches one could take when confronted with this problem, and while I only aim to pursue one, it seems worthwhile to at least sketch out the others and briefly address the reasons they fall short. First, one could accept the problem itself as reason enough to reject Kantianism in general. Because I contend that the problem, while significant, is not insurmountable, this approach seems to me to fall short. Second, one could bite the bullet and simply say our intuition is wrong in those cases of easy rescue, but it seems quite implausible that our intuitions surrounding these cases are wrong, so a solution that is able to account for them without abandoning the ethical framework we want to preserve would be better. Third, one could abandon, alter, or expand upon the latitudinarian account of beneficence specifically. This is the approach I will utilize. There have been a few different proposed Kantian solutions surrounding the latitudinarian account of beneficence: by finding a more rigorist interpretation of duties of beneficence (while still being constrained by perfect duties) as David Cummiskey does, by appealing to “true needs'' as opposed to “wants” as Barbara Herman does, and by arguing that the wide duty of beneficence is framed in part by a narrow duty to avoid indifference to others as Karen Stohr does. I will argue for Stohr’s approach, then modulate it in the face of a serious concern. For Stohr, what we ordinarily construe as a single duty of beneficence is really comprised of two parts: “a wide duty to perform helping actions on occasion and a narrow duty to avoid an attitude of indifference towards others as end-setters.” On many occasions, we can be non-indifferent without actively helping another person. To illustrate, Stohr gives the example of wishing someone luck before they go out in the rain to get a ticket to a concert they really want to see or congratulating them when they return with a ticket. However, this is not always the case—in the cases of easy rescue I have been discussing, the only way to avoid indifference is to rescue the person, since anything short of helping them constitutes a wanton display of indifference. The duty to avoid indifference as constructed by Stohr is imperfect (since it stems from a requirement to adopt a maxim rather than perform or abstain from a particular action, and violations result in a contradiction of the will rather than a contradiction in conception inherent to universalizations of indifference), but the sort of latitude it allows is only in the manner in which it is achieved and not the extent to which it is achieved, because displaying indifference towards a person involves not adopting “the attitude that her ends carry moral significance insofar as they are her ends,” and displaying indifference therefore shows a lack of acknowledgement for her “status as a setter of ends.” Therefore, because the duty of non-indifference is narrow in this particular sort of way, we owe non-indifference to others at all times, so actions that show indifference are never permissible—unless avoiding indifference would necessarily result in the violation of a perfect duty—and cases of easy rescue, for example, always necessitate action, since helping is the only way to avoid violating the stringent imperfect duty of non-indifference as constructed by Stohr. I will illustrate this distinction with an example from the superhero web serial Worm, in which a character named Panacea has the power to quickly heal any disease or injury. This power has also given her a sense of obligation that has dominated her life—she gained the power when she was a young teenager, and ever since then, she has felt that every moment she takes to herself is horrendously selfish since she could be, for example, visiting a hospital to cure every cancer patient there instead. Suppose Panacea walks past a large hospital on her way to see a movie with her sister Victoria. Of course, she knows there are almost certainly dozens if not hundreds of people who stand a very real chance of dying if she doesn’t help them immediately. Since all it costs her to save dozens of lives is that she postpone or cancel movie night with her sister, it might seem as if choosing to see the movie over saving lives is necessarily a display of indifference, no matter how many people she saved earlier that day—much as walking past a drowning child one could easily save at effectively zero cost to oneself results in a display of indifference no matter how many drowning children one has helped so far that day. Panacea also cannot just wish the patients well or pursue some other non-helping action to satisfy the constraint of non-indifference, since any well-wishes or non-helping action would seem horrendously insincere—she could have actually cured their illnesses and injuries but chose not to due to a more or less insignificant cost to herself. So, under a plain reading of Stohr’s model, Panacea would seem to be expressing indifference whenever she decided to go see a movie with her sister instead of saving hundreds of lives, and since non-indifference is owed to others at all times, she can never permissibly see a movie with her sister, since she will never reach a point where nobody is in need of her help. But it seems difficult to square that result with our own intuition. While there are obviously no Panaceas in the real world, some trained medical professionals might feel the same sort of burden. Take one of the permutations of Stohr’s example about a doctor “performing life-saving surgery on impoverished people in developing countries.” Suppose that the doctor plans on taking a flight home in an hour (not to attend to any particularly urgent crisis at home, simply because they want to go back), but someone appears in their waiting room in urgent need of such a surgery, which will take two hours. It seems to be a display of indifference to ever prioritize not delaying one’s flight over another person’s life. However, it seems intuitive that a moral theory ought not require them to stay indefinitely if they are helping in such a region. Resultantly, it seems like something is missing from the account that simply argues that we have a narrow imperfect duty to avoid indifference—it seems to be, in some cases, too stringent. It now seems that a Kantian approach has to be able to thread the needle between never requiring a particular act of aid and being over-demanding (e.g., requiring the surgeon to stay indefinitely). I contend that, in some cases, the only way to effectively do this from a Kantian lens is to appeal to certain duties to oneself—a perfect duty to refrain from servility, and imperfect duties that stem from the duty to respect one’s own autonomy—and use them to bound or frame duties to help others. First, let’s consider possible duties to others that might allow the surgeon to leave, both intuitively and within a Kantian framework. It is simply the case that any sort of perfect duty one has to another “trumps” the narrow, imperfect duty of non-indifference if the two are ever reasonably in conflict—that’s a fundamental quality of perfect duties. But certain sorts of urgent, narrow, imperfect duties can act to allow the surgeon to leave as well. Suppose the surgeon has a son at home who was just critically injured in a car crash, and needs to leave as soon as they can to be there for him. At this point, the sort of familial obligations the surgeon has can serve as a justification for leaving even if a patient has just come to the waiting room in need of assistance, because we can imagine the surgeon justifying their decision to the patient with something along the lines of “of course, I don’t want to leave you in the lurch, and it hurts me deeply that I can’t help you, but I have to go see my son.” The patient almost certainly won’t like this, but they cannot reasonably see the surgeon as displaying indifference through that action. So it is possible that some obligations to others can act as a sort of counter to any claim another might make that they are displaying indifference—exactly what sorts of obligations can function that way depends largely on the circumstances. Since certain important obligations the surgeon has to others can allow them to leave, it seems as if they aren’t trapped after all. But something important is missing in this solution. It is always possible to include in the construction of our scenario that there is no other obligation to others that is sufficient to act as a counter to claims of indifference. For example, if the obligation for a family member is sufficient to counter claims of indifference, we can simply stipulate that the surgeon has no family, and we can continue doing this for any given condition. Ideally, our solution would include a broad account of the sorts of duties that are sufficient to counter claims of indifference. In sum, appealing to certain obligations to others to counter the overly-stringent demand of non-indifference seems to fall short of an adequate solution. We are in need of a different kind of solution. In addition to obligations we owe to others, Kant also argues that we have duties to ourselves that are no less deliberatively impactful than our duties to others. I will argue that the surgeon can justify flying home by appealing to such duties to the self rather than duties to another person, duties which are (as before) divided into perfect and imperfect duties. One such duty to oneself is the perfect duty to avoid servility. Thomas Hill, a modern Kantian moral philosopher, defines servility as a “kind of deferential attitude towards others resulting from ignorance or misunderstanding of one’s moral rights” or, when aware and educated on those rights, “a willingness to disavow one’s moral status, publicly and systematically, in the absence of any strong reason to do so.” On face value, it seems strange that avoiding servility would be a perfect duty. It has been established that adopting the ends of others as your own is an imperfect duty, after all. But upon reflection, avoiding servility is a perfect duty since abnegation of one’s own ends to satisfy the ends of others creates a contradiction if universalized: completely subsuming one’s own ends to the ends of others results in an individual whose only actual ends are the ends of others, and if universalized, nobody has any ends for anyone else to achieve. Here is why. If I adopt a servile attitude, I am taking up an attitude that I matter less than others from a moral standpoint, and that therefore my ends have no real deliberative weight or moral value compared to the ends of (at least some) others. Consequently, I cannot really be said to put any significant moral stock in my own ends, instead subsuming them to the ends of others, and therefore do not really hold my own ends, since holding an end means believing it carries some real normative weight. If this attitude of servility is thus universalized, nobody really values or holds their own ends in any meaningful way, so servility, which relies on others holding ends, is an incoherent concept. Servility results in a contradiction in conception rather than a contradiction in the will. Alternatively, this can be framed in terms of the humanity formulation, which contends that since to be servile is to treat yourself as a means to the ends of others, someone who is servile fails to show respect for their own humanity as a negative end and therefore violates a perfect duty. In our example, a doctor choosing to stay indefinitely would necessarily be abandoning large swathes, if not the entirety, of the ends that they genuinely hold—they would be treating the ends of their patients, at least those ends that represent true needs, as lexicographically (i.e., weighted categorically) more important than other ends the doctor might have—to watch terrible science fiction movies, or enjoy the Washington, D.C. cherry blossoms, or any other number of possible personal ends—since staying indefinitely seems to mean taking up the attitude that those ends don’t deliberatively matter at all and ought to be completely abnegated in the presence of the ends of the patients. It’s clear that this sort of systematic disavowal of their own ends constitutes the sort of deferential attitude that indicates servility and results in the doctor not showing respect for their own humanity as a negative end and viewing themselves as a mere means to the ends of others. As stated earlier, perfect duties trump imperfect ones, so if the doctor remaining (or continuing to perform any beneficent act) constitutes servility which would entail violating a perfect duty, then the doctor ought not remain, and it seems that the doctor remaining does constitute servility. One possible objection is that the doctor remaining is not necessarily servile, since the doctor could be seeing to the ends of others as an extension of their genuine autonomous decision to do so. This objection does not seem to work. The doctor pictured in the objection would be holding attitudes with certain limited parallels to Hill’s “Deferential Wife,” a hypothetical person holding particular attitudes towards herself. The Deferential Wife believes that, while women are fundamentally mentally and physically equal to men, “the proper role for a woman is to serve her family” and who resultantly chooses to act deferentially to her husband in every instance. As Hill argues, this is sufficient to bar the concept of legitimate consent, because “if she believes that she has a duty to defer to her husband, then, whatever she may say, she cannot fully understand that she has a right not to defer to him.” If someone thinks exercising a right would be an offense, they cannot “really understand what it is to have and freely give up” that right. Just like the Deferential Wife, it seems here that the doctor does not believe in any sort of inferiority for themselves but rather simply believes that, for doctors in their position, it is their proper role to stay and see to the needs of those in need. Moreover, the potentially horrific consequences of leaving (viz., the death of patients who could be saved) seem very likely to create an incredible amount of social pressure and fear of later guilt that have the potential to crowd out the capacity for a genuinely autonomous decision to stay. This does get complicated by the fact that staying is in accordance with the wide duty of helping on occasion and the narrow duty to avoid indifference to others. Taking into account all these moral psychological factors, the doctor’s understanding of what it means for them to have a right to leave is likely occluded at best. The doctor doesn’t really know what it means for them to have a right to leave, and so does not value themselves as a moral agent with the right to choose to leave, falling into the same sort of servility as Hill’s Deferential Wife, or the defendant who believes they have an obligation to not exercise their right to a trial by jury of their peers with a competent defense attorney since they believe doing so would be rude. One who does not understand their rights does not understand their moral worth, and one who does not comprehend one’s moral worth and as a result subsumes one’s ends under the ends of others is servile. Here, the doctor does not understand their rights and, by extension, their moral worth, since feelings of obligation and social/psychological pressure crowd out their capacity to understand that they have a choice. As a result, the doctor has an obligation to themselves to leave, since remaining violates a perfect duty to avoid servility. Admittedly, one might argue that if the doctor becomes legitimately aware of their own moral rights, they are not being servile even if they continue to display the same sorts of “marks of deference” by staying indefinitely. Here, the doctor is neither ignorant of their rights nor acting as if they were insignificant; rather, they are pursuing a task with a cost to themselves after weighing and considering their options. Here, staying would no longer necessitate violating a perfect duty to themselves, and leaving would therefore not be strictly obligatory. Still, even in this case, I would argue that the doctor has certain imperfect duties to themselves that act (much as imperfect duties to others do) as a counterargument against claims of indifference. Kant’s standard imperfect duties to the self as laid out in The Metaphysics of Morals are to cultivate one’s own talents (“Natural Perfection” for a “pragmatic purpose”) and to cultivate one’s own moral capacity (“for a moral purpose only”). The duty to develop one’s own talents is a wide imperfect duty in both quality (the means and methods one uses to pursue a duty) and degree (the extent to which one pursues that duty), since it stems from a duty to take up a general maxim, and violation of the duty results only in a contradiction of the will and not a contradiction in conception. The duty to cultivate one’s own moral capacity is “narrow and perfect in terms of quality” but “wide and imperfect in terms of degree,” since it is a perfect duty to strive for moral perfection, but our own human limitations prevent us from actually achieving it. Both of these duties, I contend, stem from, and are crucial to achieving, a duty to promote and cultivate one’s own autonomy. Here I mean autonomy in the Kantian sense as truly free capacity to choose to act in accordance with moral law and not just nominally free choice. Both the applicability of talents and moral capacity depend crucially on our capacity for autonomy, since autonomy is necessary for moral agency. In addition, fulfilling self-duties framed by the Humanity Formulation (i.e., respecting one’s own status as a setter of ends) necessarily entails cultivating the capacity to set those ends, which is an act of cultivating autonomy. We all have the capacity for autonomy as human beings, but such capacities are often limited by factors both outside and within our control. For example, I have panic disorder, and frequently have panic attacks that both prevent me from making autonomous decisions while having them, and result in other conditions—physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion, anxieties, etc.—that all act to limit my autonomy. In order to cultivate my talents, my moral capacity, and autonomy, I have a wide duty to take actions that mitigate these effects—a class of things like seeing a psychiatrist, taking medication, finding and pursuing outlets for dealing with stress or emotional catharsis, and so on. In sum, I have a wide duty to myself to pursue self-care. Likewise, even neurotypical folks have a bevy of social pressures, stressful conditions, feelings of obligation to others, and levels of mental, physical, and emotional harms that are autonomy-limiting, and resultantly also have duties of self-care. Another important duty that stems from that cluster of duties to oneself to cultivate, promote, and respect one’s own autonomy is a duty to the self to live one’s life in a genuine, authentic manner—that is, to live life in accordance with one’s own permissible ends and the moral law, free as much as is psychologically possible from pressures that limit one from doing so. This has a justification similar to our duty to promote our own autonomy and cultivate our talents, which parallels obligations to one’s own ends that are also duties as laid out in Kant’s Doctrine of Virtue. In staying indefinitely despite wanting to leave, the doctor cannot fulfill duties of self-care and duties to pursue and promote their own autonomy. To be clear, so long as the doctor avoids servility (i.e., genuinely understands that they have a right to leave and stays despite so understanding), staying is probably permissible since those unfulfilled duties are imperfect duties that do not have the trumping feature of the perfect duty to avoid servility discussed earlier. But nonetheless, these sorts of imperfect duties can serve as a counterargument against claims of indifference. We can imagine the doctor speaking to a hypothetical patient and saying something like: “Look, it legitimately pains me to go before I can fully help you, but I have to live my own, genuinely autonomous life pursuing my own ends, so I have to pursue the sorts of things that allow me to live in such a way, and that means I have to leave.” This certainly seems weaker than the argument made before (about leaving to be with a critically-injured son) since the duties used as a counterargument are broader and seem less urgent, at least for any given occasion, since most single actions do not in and of themselves prevent someone from living their own life. But, I would contend, they are sufficient grounds for rendering the act of leaving permissible, since they act as counterarguments against claims of indifference, meaning that the doctor can leave without violating that duty. And, of course, if the doctor genuinely regards their commitment to helping their patients as what their life is about, and reaches that conclusion autonomously with full understanding that they are free to choose other permissible ends and is therefore not displaying servility in doing so, staying is also permissible. Neither of these two cases (a perfect duty to leave that stems from the perfect duty to avoid servility and a set of imperfect duties to respect, cultivate, and promote one’s own autonomy) erase one’s obligations to avoid indifference to others. Rather, the first case acts as a trump when the two are in conflict, and both act as arguments against claims that the doctor is violating a duty of non-indifference in leaving—the first case because it is a stringent duty that would leave no room for permissibly staying, the second because a doctor who has to leave to respect, cultivate, and promote their own autonomy could plausibly argue that they really do value the people they’re leaving behind but cannot stay indefinitely without indefinitely violating an important if imperfect duty to themselves. In this manner, imperfect duties to the self act in a similar way to imperfect duties to others (e.g., an imperfect duty to be there for one’s children if they become critically injured) in terms of their function as a counterargument to claims of indifference. These sorts of arguments, and the case for the permissibility of leaving, are strengthened the more the doctor does to show non-indifference. The doctor has an obligation to set a departure date ahead of time and stick to it as best as possible—otherwise, the time they do leave risks being or seeming arbitrary. If possible, the doctor ought to attempt to find a replacement so that nobody dies or suffers greatly because of their departure; failing that, they ought to help with passing on basic, vital skills to those in the country while there. Further, they continue to have obligations once they get home to continue to show that they do care—to financially and socially support institutions that bring physicians to impoverished nations to do medical work, to work to erase the conditions that cause poverty in general, and so on. This list is not exhaustive, obviously, but rather a broad sketch of the sorts of things they probably ought to do to further solidify the permissibility of leaving, where the permissibility of leaving is dependent on avoiding showing indifference to others. Most of us are not highly-trained doctors in far-flung nations helping solve life-or-death crises. But, given how interconnected the world is, it can seem like others are constantly in need of the sort of help we can provide—whether financially, through social and political advocacy, or some other means. And, I would argue, we do have a duty to help them, stemming from concerns about indifference as well as duties to help others. It is still incumbent on us to avoid feeling indifferent (numb, jaded, or otherwise) towards people. But we cannot devalue ourselves entirely. Beyond utilitarian sorts of concerns for psychological well-being, we have to see ourselves as autonomous members of a moral community with incalculable value. Panacea cannot be indifferent to the suffering of the sick, but she is not morally bankrupt for spending time with her family or alone enjoying nature. We have obligations to others, obligations to avoid indifference that we all too often shirk—we turn away refugees, paint homeless people as junkies to justify not helping them, become jaded and callous in the face of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and other forms of bigoted violence, and fall victim to countless other pitfalls of indifference. But we must also take care not to erase ourselves from the picture, abdicating our place in the great project of humanity. To close with a story from the Jewish tradition, Rabbi Simcha Bunim took to the habit of carrying two slips of paper, one in each pocket. One read “V’anochi afar v’efer”—I am but dust and ashes. The other read “Bishvili nivra ha-olam”—the world was created for my sake. He used to look at one or the other when he needed to throughout the day. We must remember that we are but dust and ashes, and live a life dedicated to important causes and projects, not turning away from the suffering of others, but we also need to remember our place as moral agents and as ends in ourselves. And as such, we have to take care of and be gentle with not only others but also ourselves. REFERENCES Buber, Martin. Tales of the Hasidim, Vol. 2: The Later Masters. Translated by Olga Marx. Schocken Books. Hill, Thomas E. Jr. “Servility and Self Respect.” The Monist, Oxford University Press, Vol. 57, No. 1, January 1973, pp. 87-104. Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press. McCrae, John C. Worm. Wordpress, 2011-2013. Stohr, Karen. “Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid.” Journal of Moral Philosophy vol. 8 (2011), pp. 45-67. Williams, Bernard. “A Critique of Utilitarianism.” Ethics, 6th ed., edited by Steven M Cahn and Peter Markie, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 544-560. Thanks also to Dr. Karen Stohr for advising and helping guide me through this paper, my peers for questions and comments which helped me clarify and strengthen my case, and family members for listening to me work through the early stages of thinking about this topic.

Rebecca Berman Predictive Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Evaluating the Racial Bias Objection Rebecca Berman Increasingly, many courtrooms around the U.S. are utilizing predictive algorithms (PAs). PAs are an AI that assigns risk [of future offending] scores to defendants based upon various data about the defendant, not including race, to inform bail, sentencing, and parole decisions with the goals of increasing public safety, increasing fairness, and reducing mass incarceration. Although these PAs are intended to introduce greater objectivity to the courtroom by more accurately and fairly predicting who is most likely to commit future crimes, many worry about the racial inequities that these algorithms may perpetuate. Here, I scrutinize and subsequently support the claim that PAs can operate in racially biased ways, providing a strong ethical objection against their use. Then, I raise and consider the rejoinder that we should still utilize PAs because they are morally preferable to the alternative: leaving judges to their own devices. I conclude that the rejoinder adequately, but not conclusively, succeeds in rebutting the objection. Unfair racial bias in PAs is not sufficient grounds to outright reject their use, for we must evaluate the potential racial inequities perpetuated by utilizing these algorithms relative to the potentially greater racial inequities perpetuated without their use. The Racial Bias Objection to Predictive Risk Assessment ProPublica conducted research to support concerns that COMPAS (a leading predictive algorithm used in many courtrooms) is unfairly racially biased. Its re- search on risk scores for defendants in Florida showed: a. 44.9% of black defendants who do not end up recidivating are mislabeled as “high risk” (defined as a score of 5 or above), while only 23.5% of white defendants who do not end up recidivating are mislabeled as “high risk.” b. 47.7% of white defendants who end up recidivating are mislabeled as “low risk,” while only 28% of black defendants who end up recidivating are mislabeled as “low risk” (1). Intuitively, these findings strike us as an unfair racial disparity. COMPAS’s errors operate in different directions for white and black defendants: disproportionately overestimating the risk of black defendants while disproportionately underestimating the risk of white defendants. In “Measuring Algorithmic Fairness,” Deborah Hellman further unpacks the unfairness of this kind of racialized error rate disparity: First, different directions of error carry different costs. In the criminal justice system, we generally view false positives, which punishes an innocent person or over-punishes someone who deserves less punishment, as more costly and morally troublesome than false negatives, which fails to punish or under-punishes someone who is guilty. The policies and practices we have constructed in the U.S. system reflect this view. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and there is a high burden of proof for conviction. Because of this, the judicial system airs on the side of producing more false negatives than false positives. Given the widely accepted view that false positives (punishing an innocent person or over-punishing someone) carry a greater moral cost than false negatives (failing to punish or under-punish- ing a guilty individual) in the criminal justice system, we should be especially troubled by black defendants disproportionately receiving errors in the false positive direction (2). A black defendant mislabeled as “high risk” may very well lead judges to impose a much longer sentence or post higher bail than fair or necessary, a cost that black defendants would be shouldering disproportionately (in comparison to white defendants) given the error rate disparity produced by COMPAS. Second, COMPAS’s lack of error rate parity is particularly problematic due to its links to structural biases in data used by PAs. Mathematically, a calibrated algorithm will yield more false positives in the group with a higher base rate of the outcome being predicted. PAs act upon data that suggest a much higher base rate of black offending than white offending, and this base rate discrepancy can reflect structural injustices: I. Measurement Error: Black communities are over-policed, so a crime committed by a black person is much more likely to lead to an arrest than a crime committed by a white person. Therefore, the measured difference of offending between black and white offenders is much greater than the real (statistically unknowable) difference in offending between black and white offenders, and PAs unavoidably utilize this racially biased arrest data (3). II. Compounding Injustice: Due to historical and ongoing systemic racism, black Americans are more likely to live in conditions, such as poverty, certain neighborhoods, and low educational attainment, that correlate with higher predicted criminal behavior. Therefore, if and when PAs utilize criminogenic conditions as data points, relatively more black offenders will score “high risk” as a reflection of past injustices (4). To summarize, data reflecting unfair racial disparities are necessarily incorporated into COMPAS’s calculations, so unfair racial disparities will come out of COMPAS predictions. For all of these reasons—the high cost of false positives, measurement error, and compounding injustice—lack of error rate parity is a morally relevant attack on the fairness of COMPAS. By being twice as likely to label black defendants that do not end up re-offending as “high risk” than white defendants, COMPAS operates in an unfairly racially biased way. Consequently, we should not use PAs like COM- PAS in the criminal justice system. Rejoinder to the Racial Bias Objection to Predictive Risk Assessment The argument, however, is not that simple. An important rejoinder is based on the very reason why we find such tools appealing in the first place: humans are imperfect, biased decision-makers. We must consider the alternative to using risk tools in criminal justice settings: sole reliance on a human decision-maker, one that may be just as susceptible, if not more, to racial bias. Due to historical and continuing forces in the U.S. creating an association between dark skin and criminality and the fact that judges are disproportionately white, judges are unavoidably in- grained with implicit or even explicit bias that leads them to perceive black defendants as more dangerous than their white counterparts. This bias inevitably seeps into judges’ highly subjective decisions. Many studies of judicial decision-making show racially disparate outcomes in bail, sentencing, and other key criminal justice decisions (5). For example: a. Arnold, Dobbie, and Yang (2018) find, “black defendants are 3.6 percentage points more likely to be assigned monetary bail than white defendants and, conditional on being assigned monetary bail, receive bail amounts that are $9,923 greater” (6). b. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “between 2005 and 2012, black men received roughly 5% to 10% longer prison sentences than white men for similar crimes, after accounting for the facts surrounding the case” (7). Consequently, the critical and challenging question is not whether or not PAs are tainted by racial biases, but rather becomes: which is the “lesser of two evils” in terms of racial justice: utilizing PAs or leaving judges to their own devices? I will argue the former, especially if we consider the long-term potential for improving our predictive decision-making through PAs. First, although empirical data on this precise matter is limited, we have reason to believe that utilizing well-constructed PAs can reduce racial inequities in the criminal justice system. Kleinberg et al. (2017) modeled New York City pre-trial hearings and found that “a properly built algorithm can reduce crime and jail populations while simultaneously reducing racial disparities” (8). Even though the ProPublica analysis highlighted disconcerting racial data, it did not compare decision-making using COMPAS to decisions made by judges without such a tool. Second, evidence-based algorithms present more readily available means for improvement than the subjective assessments of judges. Scholars and journalists can critically examine the metrics and their relative weights used by algorithms and work to eliminate or reduce the weight of metrics that are found to be especially potent in producing racially skewed and inaccurate predictions. Also, as Hellman suggests, race can be soundly incorporated into PAs to increase their overall accuracy because certain metrics can be distinctly predictive of recidivism in white versus black offenders. For example, “housing stability” might be more predictive of recidivism in white offenders than black offenders (9). If an algorithm’s assessment of this metric were to occur in conjunction with information on race, its overall predictions would improve, reducing the level of unfair error rate dis- parity (10). Furthermore, PAs’ level of bias is consistent and uniform, while the biases of judges are highly variable and hard to predict or assess. Uniform bias is easier to ameliorate than variable, individual bias, for only one agent of bias has to be tackled rather than an abundance of agents of bias. All in all, there appear to be promising ways to reduce the unfairness of PAs—particularly if we construct these tools with a concern for systemic biases—while there currently does not appear to be ready means to better ensure a judiciary full of systematically less biased judges. The question here is not “which is more biased: PAs or judges?” but rather “which produces more racially inequitable outcomes: judges utilizing PAs or judges alone?” Even if improved algorithms’ judgments are less biased than those of judges, we must consider how the human judge, who is still the final arbiter of decisions, interacts with the tool. Is a “high risk” score more salient to a judge when given to a black defendant, perhaps leading to continued or even heightened punitive treatment being disproportionately shown towards black offenders? Simultaneously, is a “low risk” score only salient to judges when given to a white defendant, or can it help a judge overcome implicit biases to also show more leniency towards a “low risk” black offender? In other words, does utilizing this tool serve to exacerbate, confirm, or ameliorate the perpetuation of racial inequity in judges’ decisions? Much more empirical data is required to explore these questions and come to more definitive conclusions. However, this uncertainty is no reason to completely abandon PAs at this stage, for PAs hold great promise for net gains in racial equity because we can and should keep working to overcome their structural flaws. In conclusion, while COMPAS in its current form operates in a racially biased way, this factor alone is not enough to forgo the use of PAs in the criminal justice system: we must consider the extent of unfair racial disparities perpetuated by tools like COMPAS relative to the extent of unfair racial disparities perpetuated when judges make decisions without the help of a tool like COMPAS. Despite PAs’ flaws, we must not instinctively fall back on the alternative of leaving judges to their own devices, where human cognitive biases reign unchecked. We must embrace the possibility that we can improve human decision-making by using ever-improving tools like properly crafted risk assessment instruments. Endnotes 1 ProPublica, “Machine Bias.” 2 Hellman, “Measuring Algorithmic Fairness,” 832-836. 3 Ibid, 840-841. 4 Ibid, 840-841. 5 National Institute of Justice, “Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research.” 6 Arnold, Dobbie, and Yang, “Racial Bias in Bail Decisions,” 1886. 7 Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Federal Sentencing Disparity: 2005-2012,” 1. 8 Kleinberg et al., “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions,” 241. 9 Corbett-Davies et al., “Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness,” 9. 10 Hellman, “Measuring Algorithmic Fairness,” 865. Bibliography Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner. “Machine Bias.” Pro- Publica. May 23, 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bi- as-risk-assessments-in-criminal- sentencing. Arnold, Savid, Will Dobbie, Crystal S Yang. “Racial Bias in Bail Decisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133 , no. 4 (November 2018): 1885–1932. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy012. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Federal Sentencing Disparity: 2005-2012.” 248768. October, 2015. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512_sum.pdf. Corbett-Davies, Sam, Emma Pierson, Avi Feller, Sharad Goel, and Aziz Huq. “Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness.” In Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 797-806. 2017. Hellman, Deborah. “Measuring Algorithmic Fairness.” Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, no. 2019-39 (July 2019). Kleinberg, Jon, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mul- lainathan. “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, no. 1 (February 2018): 237–293. https://doi. org/10.1093/qje/qjx032. National Institute of Justice. “Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sen- tencing Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research.” Ojmarrh Mitchell, Doris L. MacKenzie. 208129. December, 2004. https://www. ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208129.pdf. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Professor Frick and Masny for teaching the seminar “The Ethics of Emerging Technologies” for which I wrote this paper. Thank you for bringing my attention to this topic and Hellman’s paper and for helping me clarify my argument. I would like to thank my dad for helping me talk through ideas and providing feedback on my first draft of this paper. Previous Next

Oliver Hicks The Necessity of Perspective: A Nietzschean Critique of Historical Materialism and Political Meta-Narratives Oliver Hicks Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche both contributed immensely to 19th century political philosophy and laid the foundation for countless revisions, interpretations, and new theories throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. While they share a common goal of exposing hidden, socially constructed restraints in order to liberate the individual, they differ sharply on both the nature of those societal restraints and what liberation actually looks like. I present these thinkers as foils: Marx guided by a normative approach that sees liberation as an inevitable conclusion of current social conditions, and Nietzsche describing liberation as necessary but ultimately ambiguous. Ultimately, I assert that this ambiguity is a necessary acceptance of true liberation that ought to humble any assertion of truth, morality, or rationality. I. Introduction But everything is fair It’s a paradox we call reality So keepin’ it real will make you A casualty of abnormal normality - Talib Kweli, Respiration (1) The above remarks are from a verse of the 2002 duet album Mos Def and Talib Kweli Are Black Star , in which artist Talib Kweli describes his inner-city New York landscape. The broader context of the song speaks to the harsh and often hopeless reality of a low-income Black experience. It begins with a dialogue from the seminal hip hop documentary Style Wars , in which a New York graffiti artist describes a recent work titled “Crime in the City.” The work implicitly asks the audience whether “crime” is all his city has to offer or if it is simply what one chooses to see when examining the New York streets. Kweli contributes his own perspective in the aforementioned line, in which he calls his reality a “paradox” where everything in this world is fair. Thus, nothing can be unfair with the proper perspective, lending itself to the paradox of never being able to pin down what is truly right or wrong. Kweli speaks of inter-gang violence, where young Black men are pitted against each other for the scarce resources present in their desolate environment. Yes, success is good, but at what cost to the broader struggle of their community? The second part of his stanza questions the efforts of anyone in this world to be truly “real,” as Kweli plays with a definition that is so integral to one’s identity in the hip hop community. Hip hop and rap are built around delivering viscerally authentic, or “real,” stories, usually about struggle, persecution, and ultimately perseverance against an adverse world. Thus, “keeping it real” becomes the idealized form of living as opposed to whitewashed versions of struggle or falsified stories for commercial success. But what does “realness” actually entail, and is it captured by this idealization? Kweli would answer that it is less objective than it might seem. Any attempt at authenticity is undermined by another perspective, and thus the vanity that accompanies an allegedly “real” individual instead makes them a casualty: they are not truly real, authentic, nor honest versions of themselves, but rather they are only “real” by an externally defined perspective, one that society wants for them. Kweli is inverting a pillar of rap culture by arguing that what is deemed true “realness” by people in the city is actually defined by the same subjective standards used to define its opposite. Put simply, the inner-city stories to which Kweli is referring are authentic as defined by what is expected of the storytellers: to be hard, cold-blooded, and insensitive to the harsh world around them. But does this produce genuine versions of who these individuals could be given different circumstances? Or are they simply buying into the “abnormal normality,” one defined by social constructs that is ultimately abnormal to whatever their “real” selves might be? The question of authenticity amidst veiling social norms is one discussed by a variety of modern political theorists, all seeking to understand who we are in order to understand who we ought to be—and how we ought to be governed. From descriptions of a primordial state of nature proposed by early contract theorists to Karl Marx’s world-encompassing system of historical materialism, these modern thinkers attempt to sketch out the natural, psychological, and social undercurrents of our behavior. Though Marx was the first to usher in a hermeneutics of suspicion by critiquing existing philosophical norms in search of hidden truths, he did so with the intent of outlining his own normative conception of humanity's goal (or his own end point on the linear timeline that is progress): communism. Decades later, Friedrich Nietzsche claimed “we are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge” in his preface to On the Genealogy of Morals. He proposed a philosophy that sought to interrogate reigning value systems that presented themselves as natural or self-evident without replacing them with his own explicit normative solution (2). Nietzsche recognized the limitations of philosophical inquiry while operating within the system he was critiquing. Humans lack a basic sense of what is good as enshrined in the concept of natural law or historical materialism because our entire system of moral values is a product of changing power dynamics. More importantly, we cannot see any semblance of truth unless we shed these artificial moral constructs. The relativity inherent in our ability to make judgements of ourselves and fellow citizens ultimately moves the goalposts of political theory itself: we are no longer moving toward that ideal form with which Plato was so obsessed because we cannot accurately define it. There are no political meta-narratives, no slate of criteria with which we can accurately and objectively identify our deepest human nature—to do so would be to dismiss far too many factors and make far too many assumptions. Rather, we must instead work to interrogate our unwavering beliefs in perceived truths or ideal forms in order to understand how we might escape them as they arise. As shown by Talib Kweli in his aforementioned lyrics, the inability to shed the social, moral, and ethical constructs that surround a particular Black experience raises questions regarding the obscuration of truth and the need for a variety of perspectives. Using Nietzsche’s skepticism of philosophy and morality as a foil for Marx’s historical materialism, I will draw on a number of their works to discuss the validity of any proposed political meta-narrative. First, I will present a brief model for viewing history as forward-facing in the pursuit of a realized ideal form, courtesy of Marx. Then, I will use Nietzsche to reject the notion of an ideal form and instead emphasize the need for perspective to understand any type of truth, political or otherwise, in order to escape the social constructs that mystify this truth and enslave us to normative ideals. II. Historical Progress as Forward-Facing: Marx’s Determinism Marx famously remarked at the beginning of The Communist Manifesto that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”(3). More importantly, however, was the history that Marx was proposing henceforth. Communism was not just a prescription for the ills of capitalism, but a prediction of the inevitable collapse of the market economy itself: the contradictions intrinsic to capitalist function would ultimately lead to its own demise. Communism would simply be the final and best option for a post-revolutionary society. In this way, Marx lays a deterministic view of human progress. If humanity keeps moving forward as is, we will reach an inflection point; if we actively work to deconstruct the status quo, we will reach that same inflection point sooner. Though bleak, this notion of progress posits its own normative assumption that society is moving forward : ideology has simply masked antagonistic class divides while capitalism exploits them, but we will inevitably overcome this stain on history to usher in a new and better world. This deterministic presentation of history, or historical materialism, is one of Marx’s greatest contributions to political philosophy. Using this dialectical approach, Marx identified two main forces that drive historical change: the division of classes and the division of labor. The evolution of class systems is best articulated in the first section of the Manifesto , where Marx focuses primarily on Europe’s transition from feudal to modern societies, namely bourgeois societies. Feudal societies were composed of complex hierarchies: feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs, and more. Among these classes existed a constant dynamic of oppression, wherein higher classes dominated subordinate ones as defined by the material conditions of each (14). Centuries of global exploration, however, produced ever-expanding markets and ever-increasing demand that revolutionized the modes of production and condensed class antagonisms into Marx’s binary: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This defined the “Modern Industry” that Marx witnessed in the 19th century, wherein “the modern bourgeoisie is itself a product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange” (5). Underlying this series of class revolutions are developments in the division of labor: first in tribal communities, then ancient communes, feudal states, commercial states, and finally the capitalist state of the bourgeoisie. The division of labor reflects both the growth of the productive capacities of these communities as well as the growth of divided interests among individuals. For example, Marx argues that the division of labor within a nation first leads to the “separation of industrial and commercial from agricultural labor, hence to the separation of town and country… [then] to the separation of commercial from industrial labor” and so on (6). Occurring simultaneously are infinitesimal divisions within these branches “among the individuals cooperating in definite kinds of labor” (7). Ultimately, Marx places the modern industrial state, with all of its complex and specialized divisions, on an historical timeline that inevitably moves toward the maximization of its productive capacities since it is constantly in competition with similarly structured nations. This maximization, however, along with its own internal contradictions, begets its own destruction. The consolidation of “scattered private property” into the consolidation of “capitalistic private property” in the hands of an increasingly smaller elite becomes too heavy to support itself, and the fetters that confine the socialization of labor for exploitation ironically lead to the organization of a massive, oppressed class that revolts against their slave-wage masters (8). This revolution, Marx argues, is a smoother transition than the original consolidation of private property via the socialization of labor, since the latter is the “expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers,” but the former is the “expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people” (9). However, the light at the end of this tunnel that is capitalism and the driving force behind this expropriation of the few by the many is Marx’s concept of “species-being.” As human beings, Marx considers our most basic and fundamental essence to be our drive to engage in productive activity; it is our “working-up of the objective world,” in which “[man] duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he contemplates himself in a world that he has created” (10). This creative process, when done freely, consciously, and socially, is what separates us from animals and satisfies our life purpose: we choose what to make and when to make it in order to survive. Capitalism disrupts this process by commodifying labor and subsequently alienating the laborer first from their product, second from their process, third from themselves, and finally from each other (11). As a result, the worker becomes antagonistic to the entire system of private property: they are resentful of the bourgeois capitalist, suspicious of their fellow worker, and disillusioned with themselves, all because of alienation from their species-being. The rediscovery of our species-being is the natural epilogue to the implosion of capitalism. And yet, this conclusion relies on Marx’s own crypto-normativity. Like the early contract theorists who came far before him, Marx is simply making his own normative assumption regarding human nature: we live to create the world around us, and are only satisfied by seeing ourselves in that world. One could argue that the exploitation of this process is a violation of a Marxist natural law, and that a communist revolution is a means of retributive justice. As noble as it may be to argue that communism is the inevitable end point of a history structured by material conditions, Marx’s theory is limited by its own dogmatic assumptions. However, he was not alone in proposing human history as a deterministic teleology. Marx built his theory off the critique of Hegel, who argued a similar conception of history driven by conflicts in ideas rather than material conditions. Adam Smith falls into this same category, emphasizing the ability to improve society through the accelerating efficiency of mutually beneficial economic transactions and production (he even titled his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations —“Nations” being plural to suggest collective benefit in pursuing capitalistic ends). Immanuel Kant believed in the ability of individual societies to develop the faculties of humankind over time, leading again to the upward trajectory of progress and the inevitable achievement of our full potential. However, each of these thinkers suffer from the same flaw: they boldly claim to know the end stage of humanity and the final form to which political philosophy strives while being limited by their own historical context and intellectual horizons. III. Rejection of the Pure Form: Nietzsche’s Response Though his work is filled with a multitude of social and moral critiques, Nietzsche claimed that “the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors so far was… Plato’s invention of the pure spirit and good as such” (12). Consistent with Nietzsche’s long-standing critique of religion was his belief that Christianity had become “Platonism for ‘the people’” by providing an ideal form to which, by restricting one’s indulgences and taking leaps of faith, one could strive and achieve a good moral life. To Nietzsche, however, faith extends far beyond theology: it applies to every corner of philosophy and knowledge. Philosophers’ pursuits of knowledge are done in vain, since each proposes an alleged “cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic” that is, in reality, simply “an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of ‘inspiration’... that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact” (13). A particularly heinous example of this prejudice is Kant’s “discovery” of a new human faculty, one that allowed him to argue man’s capacity to make synthetic judgements a priori . Nietzsche argues this discovery was in fact not a discovery at all, but a lazy leap of faith that compelled him to answer his own questions “by virtue of a faculty” and essentially invent his own causa sui (14). Consequently, Nietzsche argues that we ought to approach knowledge with suspicion. By questioning the value of truth and certainty in the face of their opposites, Nietzsche rejects the idea of proposing a fully contained and explanatory system for any type of knowledge, since “in the philosopher… there is nothing whatever that is impersonal; and above all, his morality bears decided and decisive witness to who he is ” (15). Dogmatic philosophy and its ideal forms, therefore, are less interesting to Nietzsche than the necessity of our belief in them. Rather than ask what our beliefs say, a better question to pose is what these beliefs say about us . By accusing all philosophy of being dogmatic, Nietzsche is drawing attention to the philosophical limitations of any single individual. As such, a new generation of philosophers ought to embrace “the dangerous ‘maybe’ in every sense,” instead putting their faith in possibilities rather than certainties (16). To recognize one’s own inability to offer an all-encompassing system for the world is to endorse the necessity of perspective, the variety of which is the only way to understand the true nature of anything. To deny this necessity, which Nietzsche calls “the basic condition of all life,” is to instead continue the pursuit of that Platonic good spirit or ideal form (17). Rather than working to defend knowledge as we come to understand it, philosophers should be constantly interrogating knowledge in an attempt to free themselves from their own prejudices. In doing so, one rejects the idea of truth as purely objective and “knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge” (18). Nietzsche draws attention to the fact that there is no view from nowhere: “there is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective ‘knowing’; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our ‘concept’ of this thing, our ‘objectivity,’ be” (19). Put differently, one can liken Nietzsche’s concept of truth to a statue: any singular view of the statue only provides a singular picture of it. The view from the front of the statue will give a completely different image than that from the back, assuming we could even agree upon which is front and back in the first place. A plethora of angles upon which to view the statue, therefore, is necessary to truly understand it since any individual view is inherently limited by their position relative to the object. “Free spirits,” then, unlike those who throughout history have proposed their singular view of the statue as correct, are that new generation of individuals who constantly question their own prejudices and adopt new angles (20). In this way, one could argue that Nietzsche rejects the concept of Truth altogether, and perspectivism becomes a practical tool for understanding the world around us as we develop our own concepts of knowledge. At the very least, Nietzsche seems to suggest that regardless of the existence of any Truth, we cannot even begin to understand Truth unless we prioritize an ensemble of perspectives over any individual one. In doing so, we can use the former to prevent us from being limited by the latter. Once again, Nietzsche’s perspectivism has less to do with its relationship to truth (capital-T or otherwise) and more to do with its relationship to the individual and their inherently limited perspective. This concept of agency and power in the face of social restraints is consistent throughout Nietzsche’s works, and one of the most obvious ties is in his critique of Christianity. Nietzsche makes explicit his disdain for the church in The Genealogy of Morals by arguing that the church itself pioneered a type of slave morality that inherently limits the capability of man by suppressing his instincts. Throughout history, however, this morality was used strategically by the weak (namely priests) to seize some semblance of power from the nobility, whose morality is entirely self-affirming, contemptible towards things outside itself, and emphasizes power over restraint (21). Not unlike Talib Kweli’s description of his catch-22 lifestyle as a gangster in inner-city New York, Nietzsche asks us to consider a bird of prey and a lamb: “there is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey—but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs” (22). In fact, he continues, the lambs would be perfectly well off to regard anything like a bird of prey as evil, since it is the source of violence against them; the bird of prey, however, might view this “somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: ‘we don’t bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing is tastier than a tender lamb” (23). The perspective that is intrinsic to these qualitative judgements of good and evil both undermines their objectivity and highlights a cornerstone of Nietzsche’s philosophy: will-to-power. With regard to Marx, Nietzsche dismisses one of his most basic assumptions using this concept of the will-to-power: … life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation; —but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal—it takes place in every healthy aristocracy—must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other: it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavor to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendency—not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it lives, and because life is precisely Will to Power… “Exploitation” does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life (24). By arguing that exploitation is not inherently evil, it is easy to dismiss Nietzsche as equally normative with different assumptions. The difference, however, is that Nietzsche’s critique does not lead him to propose a political solution or theorize a political meta-narrative meant to end suffering as he sees it, for that would be replacing one restraining superstructure with another. Will-to-power, according to Nietzsche, is not a facet of human nature that must be complemented by politics nor economics: the will-to-power is a means to finding that solution. It is the unaffected and unfettered ability of truly “free spirits” to escape the confines of “good” and “evil” themselves. As discussed above, no philosopher is truly impartial nor void of their own prejudices, and political meta-narratives such as Marx’s unwavering rejection of exploitation cannot exist to serve their purpose without accepting some degree of dogmatic assumptions. Nietzsche himself is no exception, which is why he hypothesizes these free spirits rather than identifying with them. But continuing to engage in philosophy, particularly political philosophy, without interrogating these assumptions and prejudices is distracting; we cannot begin to construct new worlds until we have deconstructed old ones. Earlier in Nietzsche’s career, we see a similar critique of Christian morals in a different context. In On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life , Nietzsche argues that Christianity seeks to define an end point for humanity by predicting “an end to life on earth… and [condemning] the living to live in the fifth act of the tragedy” (25). By limiting the scope and potential of humanity, Christianity restrains the true potential of the strong and capable, or those who might have the potential to transcend the social or moral limitations they have inherited. Moreover, Nietzsche argues that “Christianity would like to [destroy] every culture which incites to striving further and takes for its motto memento vivere … [it] rejects with a shrug of the shoulders everything in the process of becoming, and spreads over it the feeling of being very late arrivals and epigoni” (26). Though Marx’s calls to action for the proletarian revolution seem counterintuitive to a feeling of being “late arrivals” or “epigoni,” Nietzsche’s critique holds true with regard to Marxism’s crypto-normative, deterministic approach to social organization. Marx provides an all-encompassing system that is meant to both explain and predict the movement of human progress, which owes itself entirely to factors and conditions that are beyond the individual. In a way, this parallels Nietzsche’s diagnosis that we are products of our society to a degree much higher than we realize. The difference, however, lies in their prognosis. Marx believed that the course of these societal effects, namely material conditions, would inevitably lead to the implosion of the status quo that, if properly prepared for, could usher in his optimal form of social organization. Individuals, therefore, might not be “late arrivals” nor “epigoni,” though Marx certainly seems to think that these individuals are entirely at the behest of their own material conditions. The asymmetrical influence that these material conditions have on us—the proletariat being exploited by these material conditions and the bourgeoisie benefitting from them—leads Marx to draw moral conclusions: exploitation is bad and satisfaction of species-being is good . What Marx fails to do is recognize that he is a product of his own material conditions, and so are his theory and determinations of “good” and “bad.” The quasi-utopian society that is only permitted by the revolution is itself borrowing descriptions from the idealized lifestyles of the bourgeoisie. In The German Ideology , Marx suggests that man in a capitalist society is “a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his livelihood,” which is true for most working-class individuals. He then adds that in a communist society that same man may “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as [he has] a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic” (27). The ability to actively satisfy one’s species-being, or to do as one pleases without the alienating incentives required by capitalism, is simply the universalization of bourgeois life—it’s not hard to imagine that these hypothesized jacks-of-all-trades did exist in 19th century Europe, they just happened to be the elite. He who can labor (or engage in any productive activity) without being defined by that labor is a privilege of the ruling class—and one that Marx identifies as good and therefore preferable. In other words, a communist society destroys class conflicts by creating the conditions of one class for all classes. This is not to say that Marx is proposing an egalitarian utopia as his positive project, since he does believe in a relatively heterogeneous society living by the mantra “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”(28). Moreover, the concept of class itself is theorized to dissolve post-revolution, but this does not mean that Marx’s ideal conditions for all human beings aren’t plagiarizing the conditions of a single class as observed pre-revolution. When workers own the means of production rather than capitalists, they will have the resources, leisure time, and material conditions to produce in accordance with their species-being and satisfy Marx’s normatively defined purpose (or achieve his own concept of “good”). Like Kant, Marx is creating his own causa sui . A Nietzschean contribution to Marxism might argue, then, that capitalism must be deconstructed in the same way that we might deconstruct Christian morality: not with the intent of replacing these superstructures with our own normative solution, but by interrogating them to essentially see where it takes us. Again, the elusive free spirit is not an indirect, self-congratulatory description of the value of Nietzsche’s own theories, nor is it a pessimistic and nihilistic acceptance that nothing truly matters. Rather, it is a new theory in itself—one that considers the possibilities of a new generation of entirely self-affirming thinkers stripped of their prejudices and social restraints. IV. Conclusion Marx’s ultimate conclusion is that a history of society determined by material conditions leaves us no choice but to reject our current modes of production in favor of a society that complements the satisfaction of our species-being. If we don’t, then capitalism will destroy itself anyway. Marx certainly presents himself as a revolutionary determined to unite the working men of all countries toward a common purpose, but it’s difficult to reconcile this call for individual agency toward a collective purpose with the material conditions that seem to govern us regardless of that agency. Marx’s own logic is, again, itself determined by the superstructures he seeks to identify; he is no more or less a product of them than any of the characters in his theory. The vain assertion of a universal truth that is species-being simply uses his own normative definition of what is good by borrowing language from those who have already determined what is good: the bourgeoisie. Consequently, we see his proposed political meta-narrative, that contradictory principles of capitalism inevitably lead to the realization of human emancipation, is at best incomplete and at worst deeply flawed. In the case of the former, we can at least use Marx’s critique of capital to understand how material conditions have shaped our world views: they can determine incentives, exploit workers based on factors beyond their immediate control, or assign value to both people and commodities. These are invaluable critiques that have wide-ranging implications, but they are nowhere near close enough to providing an all-encompassing system of human behavior. In the case of the latter, however, we are met with the dangerous hubris of which Nietzsche is so suspicious. The true nature of anything can only be understood by simultaneously interrogating our prejudices and assumptions while recognizing the need for multiple perspectives. Truth ought to be sought after, but it is extremely elusive and mystified by social constructs, whether they be political, material, moral, sexual, racial, or otherwise. From a postmodernist perspective, Nietzsche was perhaps prodigal. Today, we live in a pluralist world that is constantly challenging the normative assumptions that structure so much of our interconnected lives. Critical race theory has interrogated the fundamental principles of our facially neutral laws; emerging disciplines of queer and feminist studies have reshaped the way we understand and perform our gender and sexuality; successive generations of increasingly agnostic individuals have undermined religiously-grounded social norms to further liberate the arts and create a vibrant pop culture. Social media alone has become one of the greatest conduits for self-expression and has created channels of communication that the world has never before seen. Everything from college campuses to corporate boardrooms have acknowledged the importance of representation and diversity in order to create more inclusive communities. The 21st century is an era of interrogation that requires one to accept a multiplicity of perspectives. Ultimately, it could be said that we are unified by a common obligation to better understand each other. In a way, Marx becomes the casualty to which Talib Kweli is referring in his verse. The idealization of a satisfied species-being is arguably a normality defined by what is expected of human beings in a capitalistic world: to enjoy their work. It is not difficult to imagine that this is actually abnormal, and the entire concept of labor as we understand it could transform or even wither away in the epochs to come due to technology, climate change, or some other unforeseen development. Nietzsche therefore becomes a critical theorist superseding even Marx, for he seeks to critique not just one superstructure but all the superstructures that limit our ability to define for ourselves what is good, bad, evil, true, rational, or authentic. Political philosophy ought to continue elevating the voices that provide these pointed critiques and encourage generations of free spirits as they come. As Kweli might argue, to truly engage in philosophy is to suspect any normality as actually abnormal, and not suffer as a casualty of its misleading assumptions. Rather, we ought to use these suspicions in the service of life and work towards the most ideal form of social organization we can find while recognizing that there is always work to be done. Endnotes 1 Black Star. “Respiration (feat. Common).” Track 11 on Mos Def and Talib Kweli Are Black Star . Rawkus Records, 1998, CD. 2 Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 451. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. 3 Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “The Communist Manifesto.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 473. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. 4 Ibid, 474. 5 Ibid, 475. 6 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The German Ideology.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 150. New York: Norton, 1978. 7 Ibid, 150. 8 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Capital, Volume One.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 437. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. 9 Ibid, 438. 10 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 76. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. 11 Ibid, 72-77; Marx describes species-being at length throughout the Manuscripts. 12 Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 193. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. 13 Ibid, 202. 14 Ibid, 207-208. 15 Ibid, 204. 16 Ibid, 201. 17 Ibid, 193. 18 Ibid,. 555. 19 Ibid, 555. 20 Ibid, 242-243. 21 Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 472–479. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967.; Nietzsche describes his master-slave dichotomy of morality throughout the first essay of his Genealogy , though particularly in sections 10, 11, 12, and 13. 22 Ibid, 480. 23 Ibid, 481. 24 Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 393. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. 25 Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life . Translated by Peter Preuss. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1980. 44 26 Ibid, 45. 27 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The German Ideology.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 160. New York: Norton, 1978. 28 Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Critique of the Gotha Program.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 531. New York: Norton, 1978. References Black Star. “Respiration.” Track 11 on Mos Def and Talib Kweli Are Black Star . Rawkus Records, 1998, CD. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 437–601. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The Communist Manifesto.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 469–500. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “The German Ideology.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 146–200. New York: Norton, 1978. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Capital, Volume One.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 294–438. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 66–125. New York, New York: Norton, 1978. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 179–435. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Essay. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche , translated by Walter Arnold Kaufmann, 437–601. New York, New York: Modern Library, 1967. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life . Translated by Peter Preuss. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co., 1980. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. “Critique of the Gotha Program.” Essay. In The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by Robert C. Tucker, 525–542. New York: Norton, 1978. Previous Next

The European Union Trust Fund for Africa: Understanding the EU’s Securitization of Development Aid and its Implications Migena Satyal Author Jason Fu Sophie Rukin Editors Abstract Migration policies in the European Union (EU) have long been securitized; however, the 2015 migration crisis represented a turning point for EU securitization of development aid to shape migration outcomes from various African countries. In 2015, the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Stability and Addressing Root Causes of Irregular Migration and Displaced Persons in Africa (EUTF) was created at the Valletta Summit on Migration to address the drivers of irregular migration such as poverty, poor social and economic conditions, weak governance and conflict prevention, and inadequate resiliency to food and environmental pressures. The duration of this fund was from 2016-2021. Central to the strategy of the EUTF was addressing “root causes” however, the fund came with security dimensions. Under its objective of improved migration management, the EU directed capital to various security apparatuses in Africa to limit the movement of irregular migrants and prevent them from reaching Europe. This method diverted aid from addressing the existing problems faced by vulnerable populations in the region and contributed to practices and organizations that are responsible for implementing coercive measures to limit movement of migrants and committing human rights abuses. This paper examines the political and ideological motives and objectives behind the EU's securitization of development financing via the EUTF, how it has strategically used the “root causes'' narrative to secure these arrangements, and the ways in which this pattern of interaction is inherently neo-colonial. Introduction: The European Union Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF) The European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Stability and Addressing Root Causes of Irregular Migration and Displaced Persons in Africa (EUTF for Africa) was passed in November 2015 at the Valletta Summit on Migration where European and African heads of state met to address the challenges and opportunities presented through the 2015 migration crisis. African and European heads of state recognized that migration was a shared responsibility between the countries of origin, transit, and destination. They were joined by the African Union Commission, the Economic Community of West African States, states parties to the Khartoum and Rabat Process, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and representatives of the International Organization for Migration. The Valletta Summit identified the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement which became the guiding narrative to create and implement the EUTF. The Action Plan of the Summit stated, “the Trust Fund will help address the root causes of destabilization, forced displacement, and irregular migration by promoting economic and equal opportunities, strengthening the resilience of vulnerable people, security, and development.” Therefore, addressing these issues via development aid would limit irregular migration. The European Commission claimed that “demographic pressure, environmental stress, extreme poverty, internal tensions, institutional weaknesses, weak social and economic infrastructures, and insufficient resilience to food crises, as well as internal armed conflicts, terrorist threats, and a deteriorated security environment” needed to be addressed within the EUTF framework. However, the root cause narrative itself was partially based on assumption rather than empirical evidence. Economic data analyzing the correlation between economic development aid and migration show that the two variables have an inverse relationship. Economic and human development increase peoples’ ambitions, competencies, and resources, encouraging them to emigrate. Migration has a downward trend only when a country reaches an upper-middle income level. This concept is also known as a migration hump. Although EU officials were aware of this phenomenon, they ignored the underlying issues of the root causes narrative and proceeded to create the fund. Between 2016 and 2022 the EUTF dispersed approximately EUR 5.0 billion across 26 African countries in the Sahel and Lake Chad, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. This funding was on top of pre-existing EUR 20 billion annual aid from the EU to these geographical regions. Despite packaging the EUTF as development aid and extracting the money almost exclusively from the European Development Fund (EDF), which specifically targets economic, social, and cultural development programs, the EUTF fell within the 2015 European Agenda on Migration, introducing a security dimension to development financing. The EU and African partner countries used a significant amount of aid from the EUTF to bolster migration management initiatives via the funding and strengthening of security apparatuses that are responsible for targeting migrants within Africa, before they could embark on their journeys to European states. Under the EUTF, improved migration management constitutes “contributing to the development of national and regional strategies on migration management, containing and preventing irregular migration, and fight against trafficking of human beings, smuggling of migrants and other related crimes, effective return and readmission, international protection and asylum, legal migration, and mobility.” It includes increasing logistical capabilities by providing capital to train border agents, and bolstering surveillance infrastructure to monitor citizens’ movement, and expanding logistical capacities. In some cases, it also relies on encouraging certain policies in recipient countries to align with the priorities of the donor countries. As shown in EUTF annual reports (Figures 1.1-1.6), there was an increasing diversion of capital towards funding migration management projects in Africa, which came at the expense of economic development projects. By using aid to fund security goals, the EU securitized and politicized development financing. Securitization in migration policy refers to the externalization and extra-territorialization of migration control through border controls and reclassification of various activities like drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and delinquency of migrants as national security concerns. Still, some EUTF funding went towards projects geared at economic development. As stated in the Action Plan and shown in subsequent annual reports, the EUTF implemented programs that promoted job creation, education, entrepreneurship, and building resiliency. However, they also used the money from the development package to strengthen migration management initiatives and shift responsibilities to third countries in Africa, ultimately creating “legal black holes” where European norms about human rights did not apply. Despite the clear evidence of the EU’s contribution to abuses towards African irregular migrants, the EU continues to implement repressive policies through various externalization mechanisms and faulty narratives that have been empirically proven to not work – such as the root causes narrative – in order to further its own interests in the African continent. Research Question The practice of funneling capital toward security-related migration management projects raises the following question: Why has the EU opted to securitize its development aid through EUTF in the aftermath of the 2015 migration crisis? Furthermore, what are the implications of aid securitization in terms of development aid effectiveness, human rights practices, and the EU’s external legitimacy as a normative actor? To answer these overarching questions and understand the promotion and proliferation of migration policies through pacts like the EUTF requires an inward look into the European Union and its political and ideological interests in the migration policy domain. Therefore, I propose that the EUTF was a neo-colonial mechanism through which European member states could further their migration policy priorities into certain African states thereby reinforcing their colonial legacy hierarchies. Methodology First, I will provide background information about the EUTF, highlighting its objectives and strategies for development aid implementation and effectiveness. Then, I will provide quantitative data regarding the dispersion of money from the EUTF to show the increasing investments toward migration management schemes. Understanding these specificities and inherent challenges of the EUTF will contextualize my hypotheses. Next, I will support my hypothesis through case studies of specific EUTF security operations in African countries, analysis of the EU’s previous migration policies, interviews with African and European Union stakeholders about EUTF’s development and impact, and various theories to help explain how the EU navigates its migration policies. Finally, I will assess the implications of aid securitization in both Europe and Africa. My research will rely on official documents from the EU about its migration agenda and policies. It will also use data from academic journals and previous literature that have examined the trajectory of the EU’s migration-development nexus, specifically through the EUTF. Assessing the current nature of the EU’s migration policies will be useful in helping guide future policies. As migration becomes an increasingly salient issue, it is crucial to determine strategies or “best practices” that are humane and sustainable to address it. Adhering to human rights norms should be at the center of these policies. Background The Action Plan of the Valletta Summit was based on five priority domains: Reducing poverty, advancing socio-economic development, promoting peace and good governance. Facilitating educational and skills training exchanges between EU and EU member states as well as the creation of legal pathways of employment for migrants and returnees. Providing humanitarian assistance to countries needing food assistance, shelter, water, and sanitation. Fighting against irregular migration, migrant smuggling, and trafficking. Facilitating the return, readmission, and reintegration of migrants. During Valletta, Martin Schulz, the former President of the European Parliament stated, “By boosting local economies through trade, for example through economic partnership agreements and through ‘aid for trade’ programs, by investing in development and by enhancing good governance people will be enabled to stay where they want to be ‘at home.’” He reiterates that the purpose of the EUTF is not “fight the migrants” but rather, “fight the root causes of migration: poverty and conflict.” This seemingly proactive approach underscores the belief that addressing the primary drivers of migration by promoting development measures will empower people to remain in their respective countries by choice rather than feeling compelled to migrate elsewhere. “Root Causes”: Overlooking Evidence The problem with the EU’s understanding and use of the “root causes” narrative is that it ignores how wage differentials contribute to migratory patterns. Wage differentials refers to the discrepancy in wages for similar jobs due to factors like industry or geography. While development aid can be effective, it is not enough to redistribute wealth and address the deep structural inequalities of the global economy that drive migration to more developed and wealthier countries. Subsequent sections will elaborate further on the adoption of the root causes framing. EUTF Annual Aid Reports (2016-2022) As stated in the Valletta Summit political declaration, the EU was committed to “address the root causes of irregular migration” through the EUTF. However, aid allocation data (Figures 1-1.6) from EUTF annual reports, which highlight the distribution of aid in amount and percentage terms by geographical window and five of the EUTF’s objectives, show an increased prioritization of implementing migration management schemes at the expense of development projects between 2016 and 2022. In 2016 (Figure 1), when EUTF was in the implementation phase, EU officials distributed significantly more funds for economic development projects across North Africa, the Sahel, and Horn of Africa than any other domains which aligned with the root causes narrative that was emphasized at Valletta. In 2017 (Figure 1.1), the allocation for improved migration management significantly increased across the three regions. In North Africa, funding for economic development, strengthening resilience, and conflict prevention was eliminated while EUR 285 million was given to migration management. This pattern is strategic due to the geographic proximity of the region to southern European borders. In 2018 (Figure 1.2), North Africa remained the biggest recipient of migration management funds but did not receive funding for development projects. In 2019 (Figure 1.3), 31.56 percent of total funding was invested in migration management. In 2020 (Figure 1.4), 2021 (Figure 1.5), and 2022 (Figure 1.6), improved migration management projects continued to receive most funding at the expense of other objectives. The funding patterns outlined in these reports show the EU’s increased focus towards its migration objectives. Figure 1: EUTF Projects Approved in 2016 Figure 1.1: EUTF Projects Approved in 2017 Figure 1.2: Projects Approved in 2018 Figure 1.3: Projects Approved in 2019 Figure 1.4: Projects approved in 2020 Figure 1.5: Projects approved in 2021 Figure 1.6: Projects approved in 2022 Taking the background information and data into account, I will prove my hypothesis, explaining why the EU increasingly invested in migration management projects in the following sections. Defining Neo-Colonialism The concept of ‘neo-colonialism; was coined by Kwame Nkrumah’s Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, in which he argues that neo-colonialism is a contemporary form of colonialism that is perpetuated through less traditionally coerciece methods, such as development aid. This theory can be applied when assassing relations and interdependency between former colonial states with formerly colonized states. Interdependence is manufactured by former colonial powers that “[give] independence” to their subjects, only for them to follow up by allocating aid.” They speak about guaranteeing independence and liberation but never implement policies to preserve them in an effort to maintain their influence and objectives via unobstrusive and monetary means rather than directly coercive ones. As a result, these countries’ economic system, and thus their political policy, is “directed from outside” through foreign capital.” EUTF as a Neo-Colonial Instrument In the 19th and 20th centuries, European powers reshaped all aspects of African society, through colonialism, for their own strategic imperatives. These included, but were not limited to, extraction of material resources, manufactured dependency, and assertion of European institutions and policies at the expense of indigenous cultures and institutions. The complete overhaul of pre-colonial Africa interrupted economic and political development in the region and led to its continued structural subordination despite achieving independence from European colonial states in the 21st century. As a result, the repercussions of colonialism have contemporary implications in EU-Africa relations. During the colonial era, colonial powers used military power and additional forms of coercive strategies to assert foreign influence; currently, former colonial powers capitalize on the weaknesses of African countries and use political and economic measures to gain influence. Colonialism never disappeared, but rather, evolved into neo-colonialism. This concept is demonstrated in the framework of the EUTF which, despite being a development aid package and product of a seemingly coordinated multilateral process, imposed conditionalities and security measures on African states to achieve political goals in the field of migration. Under the EUTF, patterns of cooperation between European countries and their former colonies to limit migration are also prevalent, especially in the case of Libya and Niger. These initiatives safeguard colonial-era power structures and undermine the sovereignty of the respective African states. The EU took advantage of its status as a donor institution through three mechanisms that enforced hierarchies between African and European powers: The governance structure,designed to dismiss African stakeholder engagement EU’s imposition of positive and negative conditionalities to certain African states The strategic partnerships between European and African states to implement migration management programs These steps demonstrate the EU’s broader goals to assert their influence in the region’s migration policies by implementing security schemes, jeopardizing the needs of African states and the preservation of human rights in the process. The use of EUTF to conduct such projects signals the “de facto policy purchase” on the African government’s stance on migration. Consequently, African states become an “instrument” for European neo-colonial policies, especially in the migration domain. Eurafrica to Modern EU-Africa Relations The legacy and discourse of colonialism and neo-colonialism are not equal among EU member states. Many European countries were colonial powers, with the exception of Ireland and Malta, along with several central European countries that were subjugated to the authority of larger imperial powers. However, specific past actions hold little significance when discussing the broader nexus between European integration, the European Union, and colonialism. In Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism , Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson argue that there was a vast overlap between the colonial and European projects. Several African countries, under colonialism, have historically played a key role in efforts towards European integration and unity from the 1920s to the 1950s under the geo-political concept of Eurafrica. According to this idea, European integration would only occur through “coordinated exploitation of Africa and Africa could be efficiently exploited only if European states cooperated and combined their economic and political capacities.” The pan-European movement in the interwar period was based on conditions for peace through a “united colonial effort” in Africa. Eurafrica turned into a political reality with the emergence of the European Economic Community (EEC) made up of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany, along with colonial possessions that were referred to as “overseas countries and territories” (OCTs). For the EEC, Africa served as a “necessity,” “a strategic interest,” “an economic imperative,” “a peace project,” “a white man’s burden,” and “Europe’s last chance.” Put differently, “Africa was indispensable for Europe’s geopolitical and economic survival.” Africa became the guiding force of European integration and Eurafrica became a system through which colonial powers could preserve their empires. Eurafrica, in its original form, did not materialize because African countries took back control from European colonial powers, but its legacy is crucial to the development of the EEC and modern EU-Africa relations. Today, the EU describes its relationship with Africa in terms like “interdependence,” and “partnership of equals.” Nonetheless, the EU’s colonial past still plays a significant role in its foreign policy with Africa as it promotes the adoption of European rules and practices in its “normative empires.” The continuation of these empires has cemented core-periphery dynamics of interaction, which ultimately advances European interests, especially in the migration domain. Specifically, the EU’s externalization of border and migration management efforts to transfer the European model of governance to third countries have transformed them into “southern buffer zones” to curtail unwanted migration and enhance Europe’s sense of security. Such measures demonstrate the separation of physical borders from functional regimes in Europe’s fluid borderlands, which are antecedent to imperial practices when control was extended beyond territorial boundaries. These practices are evident in the EU’s security operations through pacts like the EUTF, EU-Turkey Deal, and Operation SOPHIA. These externalization policies ensure the continuity of the vision derived from the Eurafrica project in the 21st century. Conditional aid The EUTF was conditional as it leveraged development aid to finance security-related migration projects and imposed positive and negative conditionalities that were used as leverage for African cooperation. When the European Commission announced its Migration Partnership Framework in 2016, it stated that development and trade policies will use positive and negative conditionalities to encourage cooperation on EU’s migration management projects. The “more for more, less for less” framework embedded into development financing means that “African governments use migration cooperation as a bargaining chip for procuring finance through renting inherent powers of state sovereignty to control entry and exit.” This coercive and concessional method contradicts the nature of cooperation that was emphasized at the Valletta Summit in 2015 and undermines the autonomy of the African states as these conditionalities perpetuate neo-colonial practices. EUTF Governance Structure and Oversight The EUTF was a product of a multilateral decision-making process. However, its governance structure, which limits proper stakeholder engagement from African representatives, signals the EU’s push to prioritize its policies over development in Africa. The European Commission claims that it is taking a bottom-up approach where the EU delegations play a key role in identifying and formulating the EUTF through consultations and dialogues to build partnerships with local stakeholders (civil society organizations, national and local authorities, and representatives). Subsequently, proposals are created by the EUTF for African teams based on EU Commission Headquarters and EU delegations. Then, the proposal is submitted to the Operational Committee for approval. Once approved, the proposals are implemented via EU member states’ authorities, developmental and technical cooperation agencies, civil society organizations, international or UN organizations, and private sector entities. The governance of the EUTF is dependent upon the Strategic Board and Operational Committees for each of the three regions where the EUTF distributed funds. The Strategic Board is responsible for “adopting the strategy of the EUTF, adjusting the geographical and thematic scope of the EUTF in reaction to evolving issues, and deciding upon amendments to the guiding document establishing the internal rules for the EUTF.” The board is chaired by the European Commission and composed of representatives and contributing donors. The Operational Committee is responsible for “reviewing and approving actions to be financed, supervising the implementation of the actions, and approving the annual report and accounts for transmission to the Strategic Board.” In the Board and the Committee, the African partner countries can only act as observers and do not hold decision-making powers. This management framework is ineffective as it is designed to limit the participation of African parties that have more comprehensive knowledge regarding the needs of the continent and areas where funds need to be directed. However, they are structurally silenced. The classification of the EUTF as development aid from the EU to Africa also provided a loophole under which parliamentary oversight was not required. The European Development Fund, which operates outside the EU budget, funded most of the aid, bypassing conventional parliamentary procedures, allowing for swift implementation of the fund. As a spokesperson for the European Commission’s DG DEVCO claimed that simplifying the procedures allows for more flexibility so projects can be implemented earlier. Proponents of the fund believe that the easy implementation process is what makes it advantageous. However, opponents of the fund like Elly Schelien, a member of the European Parliament’s Development Committee, claimed that the EU Parliament has not been given “the right democratic scrutiny” of the fund. The framing of the fund as an “emergency instrument” led to retracted bureaucratic measures to increase effectiveness as project cycles were much shorter than traditional development programming. The consolidation of power to the EU institutions and representatives meant that EUTF projects were “identified at the country level under the leadership of the EU Delegations, discussed and selected by an Operational Committee.” Engagement from African stakeholders and civil society was not required. An interview with a representative from the Operational Committee revealed that EUTF “projects were simply approved without discussion. Negotiations took place upstream between EUTF managers, European agencies, EU delegations, and partner countries.” This form of decision-making amplifies hierarchical structures between European and African representatives. Strategic Partnerships Certain EU member states partnered with African states to implement migration management programs in which they exercised authority over the movement of migrants within Africa, especially in the origin and transit countries. Not only do these policies directly conflict with the EU’s stated commitments regarding development aid and cooperation with partner countries, but the EU’s agenda is antecedent to European empires leveraging local African officials to undertake security operations in the continent. Today, this exploitative relationship is parallel to the EU’s allocation of capital, military equipment, and capacity-building instruments to African representatives who adhere to the needs of EU leaders. This pattern is visible in various projects and funding executed under the EUTF. Though reluctant to enter into such agreements with Europe, African policymakers are forced into a “perpetual balancing act, juggling domestically-derived interests with the demands of external donor and opportunity structures.” This concession stems from inherent power asymmetry between relatively weak and powerful states, upholding colonial legacy hierarchies. Case Studies on Libya and Ethiopia In the following section, I use Libya and Ethiopia as case studies to provide evidence that EUTF’s prioritization of funding migration management projects, increasing policing and surveillance in these countries, and imposing positive and negative conditionalities are reflective of neo-colonial practices to assert dominance over the movement of African irregular migrants. I chose these countries to study because each one falls within one of the two geographical windows and serves either as a popular departure or transit country where the European Union is heavily involved in migration management projects. Libya Libya is a major departure country for migrants from West African countries of origin such as Nigeria, Guinea, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Senegal. Italy demonstrated strategic interest in Libya due to its geographical proximity and colonial legacy. Between 2017 and 2022, the Italian Ministry of Interior (MI) led implementations of various migration management projects that sought to curb the arrival of migrants into Italy. In 2017, MI led the first phase of its project called “Support to Integrated Border and Migration Management in Libya” with a budget of EUR 42.2 million and a EUR 2.23 million co-financing from Italy. The principal objective of this phase was migration management. Focus areas included strengthening border control, increasing surveillance activities, combatting human smuggling and trafficking, and conducting search and rescue operations. The second phase of this project was launched by MI in 2018 until 2024 for EUR 15 million. This phase was focused on capacity-building activities and institutional strengthening of authorities such as the Libyan Coast Guard and the General Administration of Coastal Security. It also advanced the land border capabilities of relevant authorities and enhanced search and rescue (SAR) capabilities by supplying SAR vessels and corresponding maintenance programs. The beneficiaries of this project included 5,000 relevant authorities from the Libyan Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of Defense (MoD), and Ministry of Communications. The indirect beneficiaries include “future migrants rescued at the sea due to the procession of life-saving equipment to Libyan Coast Guard and General Administration for Coastal Security for them to be able to save lives.” Italy’s actions under the EUTF compromise the proper use of development financing tools by diverting them for the use of security-related projects. Its engagement and strengthening of Libyan security apparatuses such as the Libyan Coast Guard also undermine the values of human rights that EU member states claim to promote in their foreign policies as the Libyan Coast Guard is notorious for violating non-refoulment principles and committing human rights violations such as extortion, arbitrary detention, and sexual violence against migrants and asylum seekers. Recognizing brutal actions by the border authorities and the deplorable living conditions in detention centers in Libya, the Assize Court in Milan condemned the torture and violence inflicted in these centers. In November 2017, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights released a statement criticizing the EU’s support for the Libyan Coast Guard as “inhumane” as it led to the detention of migrants in “horrific” conditions in Libya. Despite institutional disapproval of the EU’s and Italy’s involvement in Libya, funding for these security projects continued. Ethiopia While Ehtiopia was never formally colonized, it remained under Italian occupation from 1935-1941 and subsequently fell under (in)formal British control from 1941-1944. The EUTF initiatives in Ethiopia do not show the same patterns of cooperation as seen in Libya and Niger, since Ethiopia served as a key interest to the EU due to its status as one of the main countries of origin, transit, and destination for migrants and refugees. EUTF report from 2016 highlighted that Ethiopia hosts over one million displaced people. It is also the biggest recipient of EUTF funding in the Horn of Africa. Its geographical proximity to countries like Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan has vastly affected its migration demographics, making it a focus area for the EU’s development aid under the EUTF. While there pre-existing migration management schemes in Ethiopia, they were concerned with the returns and reintegration of irregular Ethiopian migrants and refugees rather than building up the capacity of various security actors as seen in other regions. This objective was linked with positive conditionalities as the Third Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration links progress in the returns and readmissions field with more financial support for refugees that reside within Ethiopia. Additional projects in Ethiopia were geared towards economic development and focused on addressing the root causes as outlined in Valletta. Some of these initiatives included job creation, providing energy access, healthcare, and education to vulnerable populations which are in line with development cooperation. However, the European Union’s increasing focus on returns and readmission of Ethiopian migrants can decrease revenue derived from remittances which contribute three times more to the Ethiopian economy than development financing. This approach ensures the fulfillment of the EU’s migration interests while undermining Ethiopia’s economic needs. Ethiopian officials also expressed disappointment with the EUTF measures because they were guided by the EU’s focus on repatriation, thereby eroding migration cooperation with Ethiopia. In regards to EU interests in Ethiopia, an EU official claimed: “We can pretend that we have joint interest in migration management with Africa, but we don't. The EU is interested in return and readmission. Africa is interested in root causes, free movement, legal routes, and remittances. We don't mention that our interests are not aligned.” This non-alignment in interests is irrelevant to the EU because it is the more dominant actor and has the power to assert its priorities by using money as leverage. However, this pattern of interaction comes at the cost of losing cooperation with Ethiopian stakeholders and diverging finances from refugee and migrant populations in Ethiopia who need humanitarian assistance. Perspectives from Africa African representatives and ambassadors displayed suspicion about the fund’s motives and called on the EU to fund projects that increase economic opportunities in their respective countries. As Nigerien mayor of Tchirozerine Issouf Ag Maha stated, “as local municipalities, we don’t have any power to express our needs. The EU and project implementers came here with their priorities. It’s a ‘take it or leave it’ approach, and in the end, we have to take it because our communities need support.” Maha’s statement highlights the role the EU plays in shaping the direction of development money and how its priorities overshadow decisions and input from local officials, who are significantly more knowledgeable about the needs of their communities. Despite diverging interests and priorities, African officials concede to their demands because their communities require financial resources to alleviate hardships. President Akufo-Addo from Ghana claimed that “ instead of investing money in preventing African migrants from coming to Europe, the EU should be spending more to create jobs across the continent.” Similarly, Senegalese President Mackey Sall and former Chairperson of the African Union warned that the trust fund to tackle the causes of migration is not sufficient to meet the needs of the continent stating, stated that “if we want young Africans to stay in Africa, we need to provide Africa with more resources.” The allocation of aid to security-related projects comes at the expense of funding genuine development projects that align with the needs of African communities. It also takes advantage of the ‘cash-starved’ governments.” These statements underscore the necessity of the EUTF to direct capital towards structural and sustainable economic development as opposed to combatting, detaining, or returning migrants. However, the EU has not been responsive to these inputs from its African stakeholders despite stressing the importance of cooperation and partnership during the Valletta Summit. Reinforcing Power Imbalances The imposition of European policies and priorities through the EUTF takes advantage of African nations' relatively weaker economic standing and agency, showing that the political and security needs of powerful states and institutions determine where and how development aid is designated. It also shows the continued influence and intervention of European interests into their ostensibly independent former colonial holdings, therefore reiterating Nkrumah’s theory that foreign capital, such as development aid, can be used for the exploitation of developing countries by their former colonial powers. This hypocrisy goes against the EU’s normative approaches to its foreign policy while also continuing to reinforce power imbalances and colonial-era hierarchies between Europe and Africa. Discussion Critically examining the European Union Trust Fund in the broader context of EU-Africa relations demonstrates how EUTF represents a complex intersection of historical legacies, political interests and expediency, and political ideologies that determine attitudes towards migrants and refugees and thus, shape policy outcomes. These factors reinforce each other by showing the multifaceted nature of migration governance. The neo-colonialism lens in my hypothesis provides historical context to show how enduring colonial legacies continue to guide policies today. This lens also forms the basis for discourse about EU-Africa relations because of the visible power imbalances that are sustained through policies like the EUTF which are structurally designed to achieve European political interests at the expense of the needs of African states. As seen through the case studies on Libya, Niger, and Ethiopia, development aid is not always allocated for the benefit of the recipient. Rather, aid can be abused as a political tool to reach the objectives of the donor institutions. Despite the rhetoric of cooperation between stakeholders, preservation of human lives, equal partnership, and addressing root causes, as stated in Valletta, the strategic policy design of the EUTF highlights the persistence of neo-colonialism because it continues historical patterns of exploitation and hierarchies between Europe and Africa. Conclusion The findings in this paper show that EUTF was not merely a development instrument but also a political one that came with negative consequences for African irregular migrants. The securitization of aid along with the EU’s other externalization policies have not effectively solved the problems that have caused the migration crisis. Instead, it has reinforced them. The model of the EU’s migration policies under the EUTF has also created issues beyond the realm of migration. As discussed, it continues to sustain power imbalances between Europe and Africa, shift aid priorities, and undermine development goals.Addressing the migration crisis will require a paradigm shift in the EU migration policy domain. The EU needs to deviate away from a security-based approach to a holistic and rights-based approach. This ideological reform requires the EU to look inward to address its own limitations and failures by recognizing its neo-colonial practices, acting out of mutual rather than political interests, and lastly, collectively humanizing migrants and refugees arriving to Europe for safety and opportunities. Through these measures, the EU and African stakeholders can address the true root causes of migration – which stem from structural global inequalities. References “A European Agenda on Migration.” European Commission. November 2015. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21933/euagendafor-migration_trustfund-v10.pdf Abdelaaty, Lamis. “European countries are welcoming Ukrainian refugees. It was a different story in 2015.” The Washington Post. March 23, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/23/ukraine-refugees-welcome-europe/ Abrahams, Jessica. “Red flags raised over governance of EU Trust Fund projects.” Devex. September 22, 2017. https://www.devex.com/news/red-flags-raised-over-governance-of-eu-trust-fund-projects-91027 “Agreement Establishing The European Union Emergency Trust Fund For Stability And Addressing Root Causes Of Irregular Migration And Displaced Persons in Africa, And Its Internal Rules.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2015. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4cb965d7-8ad5-4da9-9f6d-3843f4bf0e82_en?filename=Constitutive%20Agreement%20https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4cb965d7-8ad5-4da9-9f6d-3843f4bf0e82_en?filename=Constitutive%20Agreement%20 Alcalde, Xavier. “Why the refugee crisis is not a refugee crisis.” International Catalan Institute for Peace. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.icip.cat/perlapau/en/article/why-the-refugee-crisis-is-not-a-refugee-crisis/ Allen, Peter. “French politician says country is 'white race' and immigrants should adapt or leave.” The Mirror. September 27, 2015. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-politician-says-country-white-6528611 Bachman, Bart. “Diminishing Solidarity: Polish Attitudes toward the European Migration and Refugee Crisis.” Migration Policy. June 16, 2016. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/diminishing-solidarity-polish-attitudes-toward-european-migration-and-refugee-crisis Ball, Sam. “France’s far-right National Front tops first round of regional vote.” France24. July 12, 2015. https://www.france24.com/en/20151206-france-far-right-national-front-le-pen-tops-first-round-regional-election Boswell, C. “The ‘external dimension’ of EU immigration and asylum policy.” International Affairs , 79, no. 3 (2003): 619–639. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2346.00326 Campbell, Zach.“Europe’s deadly migration strategy.” Politico. February 28, 2019. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-deadly-migration-strategy-leaked-documents/ Cantat, Celine. “The ideology of Europeanism and Europe’s migrant other,” in International Socialism 152 ( October 2016). https://isj.org.uk/the-ideology-of-europeanism-and-europes-migrant-other/ Castillejo, Clare.“The EU Migration Partnership Framework: Time for a Rethink?” German Development Institute.” 2017. https://www.idos-research.de/uploads/media/DP_28.2017.pdf Chase, Jefferson. “AfD: From anti-EU to anti-immigration.” DW. October 28, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199 Chebel d’Appollonia, Ariane. Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States and Europe . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012 “CTR - BUDGET SUPPORT - Contrat relatif à la Reconstruction de l'Etat au Niger en complément du SBC II en préparation / Appui à la Justice, Sécurité et à la Gestion des Frontières au Niger.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://eutf.akvoapp.org/dir/project/5651 De Guerry, Olivia and Andrea Storcchiero. “Partnership or Conditionality? Monitoring the Migration Compacts and EU Trust Fund for Africa.”Concord Europe. 2018. https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CONCORD_EUTrustFundReport_2018_online.pdf “David Cameron: 'Swarm' of migrants crossing the Mediterranean.” BBC. July 30, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-33714282 European Commission. “Commission announces New Migration Partnership Framework: reinforced cooperation with third countries to better manage migration.” Media release. June 7, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2072 European Commission. “Fourth Progress Report on the Partnership Framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration.” no. 350. June 13, 2017. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/4th_progress_report_partnership_framework_with_third_countries_under_european_agenda_on_migration.pdf European Council. “Remarks by President Donald Tusk at the press conference of the Valletta summit on migration.” Press release. November 12, 2015, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/12/tusk-press-conference-valletta-summit/ “EU Solidarity with Ukraine.” European Council. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/eu-solidarity-ukraine/#:~:text=affordability%20(background%20information)-,Humanitarian%20aid,and%20host%20families%20in%20Moldova . “EU-Turkey joint action plan.” European Commission. October 15, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_15_5860 Fanta, Esubalew B. “The British on the Ethiopian Bench: 1942–1944.” Northeast African Studies 16, no. 2 (2016): 67-96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/nortafristud.16.2.0067 FitzGerald, David S. “Remote control of migration: Theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 46, no. 1 (2020): 4–22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1680115 Gray, Meral. Amanda, “Learning the lessons from EU-Turkey deal: Europe’s renewed test.” Accessed March 14, 2024. https://odi.org/en/insights/learning-the-lessons-from-the-euturkey-deal-europes-renewed-test/ Hansen, Peo and Stefan Jonsson. Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration . London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. “International Affairs.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/international-affairs_en Islam, Shada.“Decolonising EU-Africa Relations Is a Pre-Condition For a True Partnership of Equals.” Center for Global Development. February 15, 2022, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/decolonising-eu-africa-relations-pre-condition-true-partnership-equals#:~:text=Senegalese%20President%20Mackey%20Sall%20who,need%20to%20provide%20Africa%20with Kabata, Monica and Jacobs, An. The ‘migrant other’ as a security threat: the ‘migration crisis’ and the securitising move of the Polish ruling party in response to the EU relocation scheme.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies , 13, no. 4 (November 13, 2022): 1223-1239 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14782804.2022.2146072 Khakee, Anna. “European Colonial Pasts and the EU’s Democracy-promoting Present: Silences and Continuities.” Italian Journal of International Affairs 57, no 3, (2022): 103-120. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03932729.2022.2053352 Kirisci, Kemal. “As EU-Turkey migration agreement reaches the five-year mark, add a job creation element.” Brookings. March 17, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/as-eu-turkey-migration-agreement-reaches-the-five-year-mark-add-a-job-creation-element/ Kundnani, Hans. Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project. London: Hurst Publishers, 2023. Langan, Mark. Neo-colonialism and The Poverty of Development in Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Lehne, Stefan. “How the Refugee Crisis Will Reshape the EU.” Carnegie Europe. February 4, 2016. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/02/04/how-refugee-crisis-will-reshape-eu-pub-62650 Liguori, Anna. Migration Law And Externalization of Border Controls. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. Mager, Therese. “The Emergency Trust Fund for Africa: Examining Methods and Motives in the EU’s External Migration Agenda.” United Nations University on Institution on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. 2018. https://cris.unu.edu/sites/cris.unu.edu/files/UNU-CRIS%20Policy%20Brief%202018-2.pdf Mainwaring, Ċetta. “Constructing Crises to Manage: Migration Governance and the Power to Exclude.” At Europe’s Edge: Migration and Crisis in the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2019. https://academic.oup.com/book/32397/chapter/268689331 Maru, Mehari T. “Migration Policy-making in Africa: Determinants and Implications for Cooperation with Europe.” Working Paper 2021/54, European University Institute, 2021. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/71355 Micinski, Nicholas and Kelsey Norman. Migration Management Aid, Governance, and Repression . Unpublished manuscript. Accessed March 14, 2024. “Mission.” EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.operationsophia.eu/about-us/#:~:text=EUNAVFOR%20MED%20operation%20Sophia%20is,poverty%2C%20climate%20change%20and%20persecution . Moravcsik, Andrew. Review of Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire, and Race in the European Project by Hans Kundnani. Foreign Affairs. October 23, 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/eurowhiteness-culture-empire-and-race-european-project Nkrumah, Kwame . Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism . London: Panaf, 1965. Oliviera, Ivo and Vince Chadwick.“Gabriel compares far-right party to Nazis.” Politico. October 23, 2015. https://www.politico.eu/article/sigmar-gabriel-compares-far-right-alternative-for-germany-afd-to-nazis-interview-rtl/ “Objective and Governance.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-mission/objective-and-governance_en Pacciardi, Agnese.“A European narrative of border externalization: the European trust fund for Africa story,” in European Security . January 22, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09662839.2024.2304723?src=#:~:text=The%20EUTF%20narrative%20portrays%20diaspora,their%20countries%20of%20origin%2C%20so Pare, Celine.“Selective Solidarity? Racialized Othering in European Migration Policies.” Amsterdam Review of European Affairs 1:1. Pages 42-54. https://www.europeanhorizonsamsterdam.org/_files/ugd/79a695_dbd76026a17f488ea00cae358bfebe8d.pdf#page=47 Reilly, Rachael, and Michael Flynn. “The Ukraine Crisis Double Standards: Has Europe’s Response to Refugees Changed?” Media Release. March 2, 2022. https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/ukraine-crisis-double-standards-has-europe-s-response-refugees-changed Rieker, Pernille and Marianne Riddervold. “Not so unique after all? Urgency and norms in EU foreign and security policy.” Journal of European Integration 44, no 4 (September 21, 2021): 459-473. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07036337.2021.1977293 Roberts, Bayard, Adrianna Murphy, and Martin Mckee. Europe’s collective failure to address the refugee crisis” in Public Health Reviews, 37, no 1 (2016): 1-5. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-016-0015-6 Sahin-Mencutek, Zeynep, Soner Barthoma, N. Ela Gökalp-Aras & Anna Triandafyllidou, “A crisis mode in migration governance: comparative and analytical insights,” in Comparative Migration Studies 10, no 12 (March 21, 2022): 1-19. https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-022-00284-2#ref-CR22 Santos, Mireia F. “Three lessons from Europe’s response to Ukrainian migration.” European Council on Foreign Relations. August 9, 2023. https://ecfr.eu/article/three-lessons-from-europes-response-to-ukrainian-migration/ Schacht, Kira. “EU uses development aid to strongarm Africa on migration.” European Data Journalism. April 13, 2022. https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/eu-uses-development-aid-to-strongarm-africa-on-migration/ Schulz, Martin.“Speech at the Valletta Summit on Migration.” Speech. Valletta, Malta. November 11, 2015. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/former_ep_presidents/president-schulz-2014-2016/en/press-room/speech_at_the_valletta_summit_on_migration.html Shields Martin, Charles, Benjamin Schraven and Steffen Angenendt. “More Development- More Migration? The “Migration Hump” and its Significance For Development Policy Cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa.” German Development Institute. 2017. https://www.idos-research.de/en/briefing-paper/article/more-development-more-migration-the-migration-hump-and-its-significance-for-development-policy-co-operation-with-sub-saharan-africa/ Silver, Laura. “Populists in Europe – especially those on the right – have increased their vote shares in recent elections.” Pew Research Center. October 6, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/06/populists-in-europe-especially-those-on-the-right-have-increased-their-vote-shares-in-recent-elections/ Sojka, Aleksandra. “Supranational identification and migration attitudes in the European Union.” BACES Working Paper no. 02-2021. Barcelona Center for Migration Studies, 2021. “Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel.” European Union External Action Service. European Union External Action Service. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/strategy_for_security_and_development_in_the_sahel_en_0.pdf Support to Integrated border and migration management in Libya – First Phase.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024, Africa, https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-programmes/support-integrated-border-and-migration-management-libya-first-phase_en “Support to Integrated border and migration management in Libya – Second Phase.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/our-programmes/support-integrated-border-and-migration-management-libya-second-phase_en Tawat, Mahama and Eileen Lamptey. “The 2015 EU-Africa Joint Valletta action plan on migration: A parable of complex interdependence.” International Migration 60, no. 6 (21 December 2020): 28-42. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imig.12953 Trust Fund Financials.” Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Accessed March 14, 2024. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/trust-fund-financials_en Tusk, Donald. “Valletta Summit on Migration.” Speech. Valletta, Malta. November 2015. European Council. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-summit/2015/11/11-12/ “Valletta Summit, 11-12 November 2015 Action Plan.” European Commission. Accessed March 14, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21839/action_plan_en.pdf “What is the EU-Turkey deal?” Rescue. March 16, 2023. https://www.rescue.org/eu/article/what-eu-turkey-deal Zaun, Natascha and Olivia Nantermoz. “Depoliticising EU migration policies: The EUTF Africa and the politicization of development aid.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49, no. 12 (May 2023): 2986-3004. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2193711 Zaun, Natascha and Olivia Nantermoz. “The use of pseudo-causal narratives in EU policies: the case of the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.” Journal of European Public Polic y 29, no. 4 (February 28, 2021): 510-529. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2021.1881583#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Commission%20Decision,insufficient%20resilience%20to%20food%20crises'%2C “2016 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2016. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/system/files/2018-10/eutf_2016_annual_report_final_en-compressed_new.pdf “2017 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2017. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/1a5f88be-e911-4831-9c2a-3a752aa27f7e_en?filename=EUTF%202017%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf “2018 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2018. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/fb0737ce-3183-415a-905c-4adff77bfce3_en?filename=Annual%20Report%202018%20%28EN%29%20 “2019 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2019. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/e340b953-5275-43e5-8bd3-af15be9fc17a_en?filename=EUTF%202019%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf “2020 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2020. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/4a4422e5-253f-4409-b25c-18af9c064ca1_en?filename=eutf-report_2020_eng_final.pdf “2021 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2021. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/f3690961-e688-44de-9789-255875979c1b_en?filename=EUTF%202021%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29 “2022 Annual Report.” Trust Fund for Africa. 2022. https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/document/download/f3690961-e688-44de-9789-255875979c1b_en?filename=EUTF%202021%20Annual%20Report%20%28English%29

The Brown University Journal of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (JPPE) is a peer reviewed academic journal for undergraduate and graduate students that is sponsored by the Political Theory Project and the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Society Program at Brown University. The Brown University Journal of Philosophy, Politics & Economics *FEATURE * FROM Sheldon Whitehouse U.S. Senator, Rhode Island Editorial board foreword Volume II Issue I Introducing the third issue of JPPE Click to flip through the journal and see previous JPPE issues ECONOMICS Philosophy Two Forms of Environmental-Political Imagination Realism, Perspective, and the Act of Looking Germany, the United States, and the Clean Energy Transition A Comparison of Chinese Cinematic Rep- resentations of the Second Sino-Japanese War By Nathan S. Chael By Isaac Leong POLITICS The Duty to Use Drones Economics A Fair Free Lunch? In Cases of National Self-Defense Reconciling Freedom and Reciprocity in the Context of Universal Basic Income By Lina Dayem By Olivia Martin Economics Philosophy Enhancing Value or Stifling Innovation The Individual Unfreedom of the Proletarian Examining the Effects of Shareholder Activism and Its Impact on American Capitalism By Cal Fawell By Andrew Kutscher and Doug Saper PHILOSOPHY Oedipus and Ion As Outsiders POLITICS Partisan Gerrymandering The Implications and Limitations of Genealogical Citizenship By Claire Holland Re-Establishing the Political Question Doctrine in Gill v. Whitford By Connor Maag

A Death Sentence Beyond Death Row: Helling v. McKinney and the Constitutionality of Solitary Confinement Hallie Sternblitz Author Lachlan Edwards Aditi Bhattacharjya Editors Originally written for U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui & Assistant U.S. Attorney Olivia B. Hinerfeld Abstract On any given day, there are 80,000 to 120,000 Americans living in solitary confinement. Restricted to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, these inmates are deprived of human interaction for days, weeks, years, or even decades. While the practice is intended as a means of protection for the general prison population or vulnerable inmates, researchers have found extreme and irreversible psychological damage in inmates who were placed in an isolated unit for both short and long periods of time. In fact, Dr. Grassian, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, determined that there was a specific psychiatric disorder associated with solitary confinement, which is now referred to as Special Housing Unit (SHU) Syndrome. Others have since found higher rates of suicide, self-harm, violence, and premature death associated with this form of isolation. Though the practice has become a longstanding custom in American prisons, I argue that solitary confinement is unconstitutional, as it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting inmates to serious and unreasonable dangers to their future health and safety. Through a two-pronged parallel with Helling v. McKinney , a SCOTUS case in which a former inmate successfully defended his freedom from cruel and unusual punishment after being subjected to secondhand smoke while incarcerated, I demonstrate that there is clear precedent for ruling the practice unconstitutional. Here, I employ the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine as well as the previous rulings that informed it to establish the application of Helling v. McKinney to the case of solitary confinement. Finally, I conclude with alternatives that better achieve solitary confinement’s intended outcomes. A timid Boy Scout with a knack for mathematics and writing, Benjamin van Zandt was sentenced to four years in prison for a property crime at age seventeen. While incarcerated, he sought out counseling, coursework, and several other opportunities to fulfill his intellectual potential. After being named valedictorian of his inmate GED program, he eventually enrolled in the Bard College Prison Initiative to begin his college degree. Despite his model behavior, he was caught bringing a piece of bread from the prison cafeteria back to his cell and was immediately transferred to New York’s Fishkill prison as a consequence. There, he was repeatedly harassed, beaten, and sexually assaulted by inmates twice his age, most of whom were seasoned criminals dominating the prison network. Still a reserved adolescent, Van Zandt was immediately preyed upon and coerced into being a carrier of contraband. As a result, he was placed in solitary confinement. Ten days later, he was found hanging from his sheets and shoelaces. Introduction: What is Solitary Confinement? On any given day, there are 80,000 to 120,000 Americans living in solitary confinement. Restricted to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, these inmates are deprived of human interaction for days, weeks, years, or even decades. They are often denied reading material, natural light, visitation, and participation in group activities. Though originally a pacifist Quaker initiative led by Benjamin Franklin the late 1700s meant to be an opportunity for spiritual reflection and moral contemplation, solitary confinement has quickly been weaponized in the U.S. as a disciplinary act meant to maintain order and deter violence within the general prison population. Today, it is common practice to move inmates to solitary confinement for three primary reasons: (1) discipline for nonviolent transgressions, such as possessing contraband or insolence toward a prison official, (2) protection of others due to an inmate exhibiting violent behavior or the threat of violent behavior, or (3) protection of an inmate who is in danger of being victimized by the violent behavior of inmates in the general prison population. Thus, any inmate regardless of their behavior while incarcerated could be subjected to solitary confinement, which is often the case for LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, or mentally ill inmates, as well as inmates of color. In fact, one study indicates that 11% of all black men born in the late 1980s experienced solitary confinement by their thirty-second birthday. This disproportionality partially stems from the bias of prison officials, who often allow an inmate’s race, mental illness, or other identifying factor to dictate their perception of the events. Despite its protective intent, solitary confinement has been shown to amplify rates of violent recidivism. This is a direct result of the mental health issues caused from extreme solitude. Thus, the motivations for placing inmates in Special Housing Units (SHU), a euphemistic title for solitary confinement, are void. However, in this paper, I will focus not on why the U.S. should terminate all solitary confinement units but why it must . Shown through a parallel analysis with Helling v. McKinney , I argue that solitary confinement is an unconstitutional practice, as it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting inmates to serious and unreasonable dangers to their future health and safety. To support this argument, I will first provide an overview of the inadequacies of legal action taken against the extreme isolation in prisons thus far. Then, I will dive into the case of Helling v. McKinney and its two-pronged application to the practice of solitary confinement. Finally, I will introduce alternative methods of accomplishing the intended goals of SHUs that will facilitate the realization of ruling solitary confinement unconstitutional. Looking through a Legal Lens: Eighth Amendment Implications The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Both the most controversial and most subjective clause, cruel and unusual punishment is at the forefront of modern debates on penitentiary justice. Originally, the phrase was intended to prevent torture as a technique of coerced confession or simply as a punishment. It was also meant to outlaw the use of barbaric instruments and public humiliation in formal sentencing. Today, the amendment is commonly employed for criminal defendants facing excessive bail or lengthy sentences at a young age. However, its use as a preventative measure against torture is often overlooked due to the lack of resources provided to victims subjected to torture during incarceration. However, the tide of Eighth Amendment cases may be shifting towards an inter-prison perspective, which has the potential to include solitary confinement. In the 2012 class action suit Ashker v. Governor of California , thousands of plaintiffs subjected to long periods of isolation in SHUs across the state due to alleged gang membership, 78 of whom spent over 20 years in solitude, sued the governor for violating their Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. They eventually agreed to a settlement that required the state to reduce their SHU population both by capacity and maximum sentence length, remove gang membership as a qualification to be placed there, and provide alternatives for those unable to serve their sentence in the general prison population. However, since this settlement, the state of California has repeatedly violated the terms and minimal change has emerged. Similarly, in Jensen v. Thornell (2012), Arizona inmates in isolation units sued for changes to the prison healthcare system, agreeing to a settlement by which the Arizona government had no intention of abiding. As such, the District Court judge rescinded approval of the settlement, bringing the parties back to trial in 2021 with new guidelines for managing medical care and health-related conditions in the state’s isolation units. Along with a handful of others, these two cases show the inadequacy of litigation over the constitutionality of solitary confinement in civil court. Though the plaintiffs may have won their cases, little has been done to reform SHUs, and tens of thousands of people remain subject to these abusive conditions daily. According to UN Special Reporter on Torture Juan Mendez, any time in forced isolation longer than fifteen days is considered abusive by UN standards. Thus, torture and abuse are commonplace within American prisons, as the average SHU inmate spends one to three months in solitude, with the longest remaining there for over forty years. As such, I argue that reform is insufficient; solitary confinement is unconstitutional and must be outlawed. Helling v. McKinney : A Potential Path Forward The Supreme Court has already laid the groundwork for ruling that solitary confinement is an unconstitutional practice under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney questions whether future health risks imposed by prison officials is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and thus a violation of an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. In a Nevada state prison, William McKinney was placed in a cell with an inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes each day. As a result, McKinney inhaled unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke, which he argued posed a serious risk to his current and future health. He sued the warden of the prison as well as several other prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. The federal Magistrate Judge ruled that the Eighth Amendment did not guarantee McKinney’s right to a smoke-free environment, arguing that McKinney failed to prove any serious medical needs that the prison neglected to address. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal Magistrate Judge’s decision, holding that McKinney should be given a second opportunity to prove that the levels of second-hand smoke constituted an unreasonable danger to his future health. Yet, during the litigation of Helling v. McKinney , SCOTUS ruled on Wilson v. Seiter , a case in which a formerly incarcerated individual claimed he experienced cruel and unusual punishment and sought financial reparations from two prison officials but lost the case because he did not prove the officials had a “culpable state of mind.” The justices held that conditions of incarceration or confinement that are not explicitly outlined in an inmate’s sentencing require a subjective component that comes from the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine. This doctrine was created in Estelle v. Gamble in 1974 in which SCOTUS held, “Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.” Exerting “deliberate indifference” has been characterized by SCOTUS as a transgression greater than negligence but less than omission with malintent. Thus, the doctrine is rather subjective in application. Nonetheless, a new dimension was added to McKinney’s case. Now, prison officials could be held accountable for a lack of adequate action with knowledge of a serious health or safety risk to an inmate. Appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, McKinney found himself in a battle with the government over whether the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine applied only to current health and safety risks or future risks alike, as his case emphasized the future health issues resulting from extreme inhalation of second-hand smoke. SCOTUS sided with McKinney, affirming his right to sue under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine. In the majority opinion, Justice Byron White argued that the doctrine in no way specified that it only applied to current health risks and should thus include future health and safety risks as well. As such, McKinney, despite not being sick at the time, successfully demonstrated a violation of his Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as prison officials acted indifferently to his future health. Drawing a Parallel: Helling v. McKinney and Solitary Confinement Helling v. McKinney greatly expanded the rights of vulnerable inmates, as they can now sue for damages that they are likely to experience post-release. When considering the constitutionality of solitary confinement, one can clearly draw a parallel between second-hand smoke and the mental illnesses that directly result from isolation. For one, solitary confinement aligns with the qualifications to employ the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine stated in Wilson v. Seiter ; it is a condition of incarceration not explicitly stated in judicial sentencing. Once eligibility has been established, there are two axioms of Helling v. McKinney that solitary confinement must satisfy in order to prove that victims of SHUs have a reasonable case to sue prison officials for violating their Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment: (1) solitary confinement poses a serious and unreasonable danger to the future health of inmates and (2) those overseeing SHUs exhibit deliberate indifference to said danger. Future Health Effects of Solitary Confinement Initial research on the psychological dangers of extreme isolation was funded by the Canadian Defense Research Board and eventually the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1950s to harness a psychological warfare defense to combat the Soviets, who were brainwashing prisoners of war. Led by Dr. Donald Hebb at McGill University, student volunteers were placed in isolation boxes meant to deprive them of all their senses. Each student was to remain in the box for as long as they felt they could, only leaving to use the restroom and eat meals, during which a facilitator of the experiment would guide them. Dr. Hebb expected to observe changes in their behavior over the course of six weeks; however, the experiment only lasted six days. The results were jarring: the students complained of vivid hallucinations, “blank” periods in their minds, inability to write or solve a basic math problem, hyperrealism of external stimuli, new fears, separation of mind and body, and even the sensation of being hit with pellets. Dr. Hebb’s findings have since been weaponized as a punitive practice for convicted criminals. Though, opponents of solitary confinement have reclaimed his work and used it to demonstrate that solitary confinement is in fact cruel and unusual punishment. Since then, more research has emerged specifically studying the correlation between solitary confinement in prisons and mental illness. For instance, a study on incarceration in New York found that inmates in solitary confinement for any length of time were five times more likely to die by suicide and 3.2 times more likely to self-harm than an inmate in the general prison population. Similarly, a California study found that hypertension was three times more common among SHU inmates. Across the U.S., those subjected to solitary confinement for any length of time were 24% more likely to die within the first year after release, including 78% more likely by suicide and 54% more likely by homicide, demonstrating an increase in violence as a result of the very practice that was meant to curb it. Furthermore, they were 127% more likely to fatally overdose on opioids in the first two weeks following release. Similar research has been conducted to determine if short stays in solitary confinement would fulfill the intended purposes while avoiding the detrimental effects; however, this was not the case. One study only included subjects that had spent less than a week in solitary confinement, yet this group had significantly higher death rates from unnatural causes such as suicide, violence, and vehicular accidents than those who had only spent time in the general prison population. Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, concentrated his research on the set of traits emerging in formerly solitarily-confined inmates post-release. After conducting several series of interviews and experiments, Dr. Grassian determined that there was a specific psychiatric disorder associated with solitary confinement, which is now referred to as SHU Syndrome. In a 2006 publication, he outlines the seven key symptoms consistent among nearly every inmate he studied: (1) hyperresponsivity to external stimuli, (2) perceptual distortions, illusions, and hallucinations, (3) panic attacks, (4) difficulties with thinking, concentration, and memory, (5) intrusive obsessional thoughts, (6) overt paranoia, and (7) impulse control. These symptoms are remarkably similar to those found in Dr. Hebb’s isolation experiment in 1951. Moreover, Dr. Grassian notes that this combination of reactions is unique to SHU Syndrome and cannot be found in nearly any other psychiatric disorder. He characterizes the condition as a form of an acute organic brain syndrome. Confirming this research, neuroscientist Huda Akil suggests that solitary confinement can permanently alter the structure of an inmate’s brain, as the functioning and structure of the human brain changes in response to environmental stimuli. As such, solitary confinement for any length of time can cause a distinct health defect that often permanently affects the inmate, even after release. Therefore, solitary confinement fulfills the first axiom presented in Helling v. McKinney , as it poses a significant and unreasonable danger to the future health of inmates. Deliberate Indifference in the Case of Solitary Confinement Wilson v. Seiter , which established that the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine in Estelle v. Gamble applies to conditions of prison confinement, cites Whitley v. Albers in its holding, stating “the ‘wantonness’ of conduct depends not on its effect on the prisoner, but on the constraints facing the official.” Therefore, the second axiom of applying the Helling v. McKinney precedent to the case of solitary confinement, which requires deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials, relies on the ability of prison officials to inhibit the placement of inmates in solitary confinement, which, as shown, is a grave danger to their future health. This proposition is fulfilled in two parts: (1) by demonstrating that prison officials have the capability to terminate or avoid placements in solitary confinement but deliberately choose to place inmates in SHUs and (2) by demonstrating that prison officials are likely aware of the health effects of extreme isolation but choose to exercise indifference. The decision to place an inmate in solitary confinement is almost entirely up to the discretion of guards and prison officials. As stated previously, inmates are sent into SHUs for a vast range of reasons, including for unprohibited behavior like talking back to a guard. As a result, a large portion of inmates in solitary confinement were placed there at the subjective discretion of a prison employee, despite never engaging in malicious behavior that would make them a danger to the general prison population. Instead, many inmates in SHUs are victims rather than perpetrators and are thus subjected to the rights violations of solitary confinement due to no actions of their own. This issue has been especially rampant in New York state prisons, where investigations show that much of the SHU population is constituted by victims of prison guard abuse, which can either be physical abuse or a guard’s abuse of power over the inmate. In fact, one investigation found 160 lawsuits of inmates who were sentenced to solitary confinement by guards who fabricated assault allegations. Often, these inmates were subjected to physical abuse at the hands of prison guards, some even resulting in permanent injury or death. However, this abusive network of guards is largely protected by their membership in an officers’ union, with which the state signed an agreement to allow arbitrators from the union to be the final determinator of an officer’s employment status. This means that when an inmate accuses a guard of abuse or misplacement in solitary confinement, the guard’s peers have the right to reinstate them in their position even if higher prison officials chose to terminate their employment. Consequently, 88% of the guards accused of fabricating reports to conceal abuse in the 160 lawsuits were reinstated in their roles, as only a court can overrule the decision of the arbitrators. This leads to a demoralizing cycle in which inmates are subjected to abuse, isolated from the general prison population, and then denied the ability to hold their abuser accountable, often leading to further abuse if they try. Once a guard places their victim in an SHU, they are usually the only form of human contact the inmate receives, thus leaving the inmate in an increasingly vulnerable position with no resource but their abuser for help. As such, a prison official can exploit their position of authority over inmates and send anyone who threatens that authority, whether it be their victims or someone who simply verbally offended them, to solitary confinement. This is not to say that all guards or prison officials have malintent in their discretion over SHU placement; yet enough are malicious and are protected by the system that the issue must be addressed. Due to the structural nature of SHUs, inmates’ placement in solitary confinement and thus their future health is often in the hands of prison guards who are neither trained mental health professionals nor judges determining the inmate’s sentence. Nonetheless, they are left to use their discretion in a life-or-death matter. As a result, placements in solitary confinement are the deliberate decision of prison officials, satisfying the first criteria of exercising deliberate indifference: the ability to terminate or avoid placing an inmate in a SHU but instead choosing to send or keep them there. Secondly, prison officials must have the knowledge that an inmate’s health will suffer as a result of placing them in solitary confinement in order to show culpability of indifference. This can be addressed by providing evidence that a prison official was aware of a health or safety risk but failed to act to resolve it. As previously stated, every prison official is in the position to act, which in the case of solitary confinement means removing an inmate from an SHU or avoiding placing them there in the first place. However, their knowledge of the risks involved is somewhat more difficult to prove. One way to establish their awareness of the practice’s dangers is through their direct experience working in a correctional facility. Research shows that prison officials are also physically and mentally affected by working in a solitary confinement unit. One study found that SHU correctional staff witness “intense human suffering” such as “smearing feces, ingesting objects, self-injury, violent outbursts” which causes “vicarious trauma” to the official. As a firsthand witness to the deterioration of inmates subjected to solitary confinement, any competent prison guard can recognize that the health and safety of the inmate are in danger as a result of extreme isolation. Furthermore, reports show that prison officials experience significantly increased stress levels when working in solitary confinement, providing them with empirical indicators of the mental risks associated with spending time in an SHU. Additionally, corrections officials assigned to solitary confinement units are at higher risk of heart disease, hypertension, PTSD, and suicide, which are some of the same health risks for isolated inmates. These rates were found to be significantly higher than both the national average and among individuals with other stressful jobs, such as the military or police force. Thus, knowledge of these personal health effects coupled with the visual sight of inmates suffering from the seven symptoms outlined in Dr. Grassian’s research of SHU Syndrome are clear indicators to prison officials of the dangerous consequences of solitary confinement. Moreover, there is a consensus among the American public that extreme isolation can be a danger to one’s health, as 86% of voters support removing inmates from solitary confinement at the first sign of an adverse health effect. This demonstrates that knowledge of the risks of solitary confinement is prevalent throughout the nation’s people, who are largely in consensus about the dangers of the practice. The deliberate indifference doctrine requires that prison officials deliberately choose to place inmates in solitary confinement over other alternatives, which has already been established, and also requires that the officials know that placing an inmate in solitary confinement will have negative health effects. Thus, this common knowledge paired with being a firsthand witness to symptoms of SHU Syndrome establishes that prison officials know the health and safety risks associated with solitary confinement, are indifferent to them, and deliberately choose to not prevent them, therefore satisfying the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine. Motivations to Outlaw Solitary Confinement As shown, solitary confinement poses a serious and unreasonable danger to the mental health of inmates and is a practice in which a prison official must exercise deliberate indifference, thus making it unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney implies that any condition of confinement that puts the future health and safety of an inmate at risk and that a prison official knowingly ignores is a violation of the rights of the inmate guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Helling v. McKinney set an important precedent in the litigation of prisoners’ rights; however, solitary confinement remains a common practice in each of the fifty states despite the parallel that has been established. Moreover, based on the research provided, the future health risks of solitary confinement are arguably much more extreme than those of second-hand smoke inhalation, with a disturbing portion of inmates like Ben van Zandt not even surviving their sentence. Yet, being subjected to second-hand smoke has been regarded as a violation of the Eighth Amendment for nearly three decades, and solitary confinement remains commonplace. As such, it is time that SHUs across the nation are put on the stand and examined for their compliance with the Constitution of this country. As Helling v. McKinney stands, solitary confinement should be unconstitutional and must be outlawed. Moreover, solitary confinement is not currently adding any benefit to the functioning of American prisons or the rehabilitation of subjected inmates. The practice is employed to protect the general prison population from violent inmates, protect vulnerable inmates who are common targets among others, or discipline inmates who disrespect the rules or officials that govern the prison. However, solitary confinement does not actually achieve any of its intended goals. Rather, it has been found to exacerbate the very issues it sets out to solve. The vast majority of studies on the effects of solitary confinement on future inmate behavior and inter-inmate violence within the general prison population has reached a consensus that there is no statistically significant correlation. This is true for both crime frequency and intensity. In fact, one study found that solitary confinement increased rates of recidivism post-release. An even stronger correlation was found between time spent in solitary confinement and violent re-offenses, indicating that the community was less safe than it would have been in the absence of the practice. As such, SHUs are not fulfilling their intended goals of reducing inter-prison violence. Instead, they are subjecting up to 120,000 people to irreversible psychological damage on any given day. Alternative Solutions to Solitary Confinement Rather than continue this practice, the precedent set by Helling v. McKinney must be employed to rule solitary confinement unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. However, I acknowledge that inter-prison violence and rule violations must be addressed. I propose three alternatives: specialized units for inmates with mental illnesses, de-escalation training for prison staff, and increased programming. The state of New York has already begun implementing these practices through its Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act, which was passed in 2021 and went into full effect in 2022. Prior to the ratification of this bill, the state began to reform its solitary confinement units by introducing the Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation, or CAPS, program. Instead of being punished for violating prison rules with isolation, inmates who exhibit serious mental illnesses are directed to the CAPS program where they receive in depth counseling, treatment, and rehabilitative intervention. As a result, the rates of self-harm for inmates who otherwise would have been sent to SHUs decreased drastically. Hence, specialized units, whether it be for inmates with mental illnesses or other groups that may be targets in the general prison population and thus require isolation, provide a realistic alternative to solitary confinement that maintains an inmate’s humanity and sociability while providing them the rehabilitative resources necessary to reenter society. Secondly, Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) for prison staff is a crucial method for creating safer communities within correctional facilities. One study found that prison officials who were trained in crisis management had a significantly decreased bias in the distribution of reported incidents. Furthermore, CIT officials were more likely to seek out less common and less severe alternative punishments rather than choose to send an inmate into isolation. As a result, less inmates were subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of solitary confinement and were instead given the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and discuss their actions. As such, de-escalation training for prison staff has the ability to change both the inequitable discrepancies and frequency of use that are associated with placement in SHUs. Finally, educational and transitional programming is key to the rehabilitation of inmates, especially those who have spent time in isolation. In one Minnesota facility, there has been a transition away from the isolating nature of solitary confinement towards the rehabilitative intention of placing an inmate in an SHU. This was primarily achieved through three programs: the introduction of Prison To Community (PTC) specialists, a companion program, and accessible treatment resources. For instance, an inmate who needed to be placed in an SHU would be assigned a PTC specialist to meet with them and discuss a plan to re-enter both the general prison population and society. Similarly, they would be given a hired companion inmate from the general prison population who would be screened to sit outside of their cell and keep them company while in isolation. This is beneficial for the SHU inmate and provides employment to the general population of inmates. Lastly, the isolated inmate would be given a variety of reading, audiovisual materials, and assignments related to addressing emotional, psychological, or behavioral issues, prompting the inmate to self-rehabilitate throughout their time in an SHU. While these programs are still not ideal in the sense that they do not eliminate the use of solitary confinement completely, they are a valuable step in transitioning prisons across the country from relying heavily on the practice to maintain order as they do now to terminating the practice in its entirety. These three alternatives provide a realistic path forward in the aftermath of ruling solitary confinement unconstitutional. Though it may require a shift in public attitude on the rights of inmates, the road to ending extreme isolation in prisons is clear and necessary. The case of solitary confinement, though more dire, parallels McKinney’s battle for his future health. As shown through its future health effects, the presence of deliberate indifference, and the strong precedent set in Helling v. McKinney , solitary confinement is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment. The practice has existed unrightfully in this country for far too long, and it is time to rule on it for what it is: it is cruel, it is unusual, it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court ought to act accordingly. [Prisoners subject to solitary confinement] fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. It became evident that some changes must be made in the system. – SCOTUS, 1890 References ACLU Staff. “Ashker v. Governor of California.” American Civil Liberties Union, June 21, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/cases/ashker-v-governor-of-california#:~:text=Summary-,Ashker%20v.,in%20the%20California%20prison%20system. ACLU Staff. “Ashker v. Governor of California.” American Civil Liberties Union, June 21, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/cases/ashker-v-governor-of-california#:~:text=Summary-,Ashker%20v.,in%20the%20California%20prison%20system. ACLU Staff. “Jensen v. Thornell.” American Civil Liberties Union, May 2, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/cases/jensen-v-thornell. ACLU Staff. “The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States.” American Civil Liberties Union, August 13, 2014. https://www.aclu.org/publications/dangerous-overuse-solitary-confinement-united-states . Admin. “Five in Six Voters Favor Sharply Restricting Use of Solitary Confinement.” Program for public consultation, June 29, 2021. https://publicconsultation.org/criminal-justice/solitary-confinement/. Barraza, Alicia, Doug van Zandt, Cerissa Harrell, and Danielle MacKenzie. “Families of Fishkill Correctional Facility Prisoners: Covid Deaths Unacceptable.” The Journal News, February 1, 2021. https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/2021/02/01/families-fishkill-correctional-facility-prisoners-covid-deaths-unacceptable/4338579001/. Canada, Kelli E., Amy C. Watson, and Scott O’kelley. “Utilizing Crisis Intervention Teams in Prison to Improve Officer Knowledge, Stigmatizing Attitudes, and Perception of Response Options.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 48, no. 1 (July 21, 2020): 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820942274. Casella, Jean, Alexandra Rivera, Jack Beck, Scott Paltrowitz, and Jessica Sandoval. “Calculating Torture.” Solitary Watch, June 24, 2023. https://solitarywatch.org/calculating-torture/. Casella, Jean, and James Ridgeway. “A Brief History of Solitary Confinement.” Bunk History, February 2, 2016. https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/a-brief-history-of-solitary-confinement. Cloud, David H., Craig Haney, Dallas Augustine, Cyrus Ahalt, and Brie Williams. “The Resource Team: A Case Study of a Solitary Confinement Reform in Oregon.” PLOS ONE 18, no. 7 (July 26, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288187. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97 (1976) Fair Fight Initiative Staff. “Solitary Confinement and Prison Guard Abuse.” Fair Fight Initiative, August 6, 2016. https://www.fairfightinitiative.org/solitary-confinement-and-prison-guard-abuse/#:~:text=People%20can%20be%20placed%20in,the%20guards%20and%20prison%20officials. Glowa-Kollisch, Sarah, Fatos Kaba, Anthony Waters, Y. Leung, Elizabeth Ford, and Homer Venters. “From Punishment to Treatment: The ‘Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation’ (CAPS) Program in New York City Jails.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 2 (February 2, 2016): 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020182. Grassian, Stuart. “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 22 (January 2006): 325–83. Grondahl, Paul. “The Brief, Anguished Life of a Mentally Ill Inmate.” Times Union, June 15, 2015. https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/The-brief-anguished-life-of-a-mentally-ill-inmate-6327006.php. Helling v. McKinney , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-1958 (last visited May 2, 2024). James, Kayla, and Elena Vanko. “The Impacts of Solitary Confinement.” Vera Institute of Justice, April 2021. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/the-impacts-of-solitary-confinement.pdf. Kaba, Fatos, Andrea Lewis, Sarah Glowa-Kollisch, James Hadler, David Lee, Howard Alper, Daniel Selling, et al. “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm among Jail Inmates.” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 3 (March 2014): 442–47. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301742. Lobel, Jules, and Huda Akil. “Law & Neuroscience: The Case of Solitary Confinement.” Daedalus 147, no. 4 (October 2018): 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00520. Matei, Andreea. “Solitary Confinement in US Prisons.” Urban Institute, August 2022. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/Solitary Confinement in the US.pdf. Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160 (1890) National Constitution Center Staff. “The Eighth Amendment.” National Constitution Center, 2024. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii/clauses/103#:~:text=(2)%20The%20Clause%20prohibits%20disproportionate,be%20acceptable%20for%20other%20crimes. NYCLU Staff. “The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (‘halt’) Solitary Confinement Act.” NYCLU, March 7, 2024. https://www.nyclu.org/resources/policy/legislations/humane-alternatives-long-term-halt-solitary-confinement-act. Otterman, Michael. “Codifying Cruelty.” Essay. In American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond , 42–58. London, UK: Pluto Press, 2007. Pullen-Blasnik, Hannah, Jessica T. Simes, and Bruce Western. “The Population Prevalence of Solitary Confinement.” Science Advances 7, no. 48 (November 26, 2021): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj1928. Rockwood, Bill, Evan Wexler, and Sarah Childress. “How Much Time U.S. Prisoners Spend in Solitary – Locked up in America.” PBS Frontline, April 22, 2014. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/locked-up-in-america/how-much-time-u-s-prisoners-spend-in-solitary/. Sandoval, Jessica. “How Solitary Confinement Contributes to the Mental Health Crisis.” National Alliance on Mental Illness, February 7, 2024. https://www.nami.org/advocate/how-solitary-confinement-contributes-to-the-mental-health-crisis/#:~:text=A%20recent%20study%20shows%20the,(54%25%20more%20likely). Santo, Alysia, and Joseph Neff. “We Investigated Abuse by Prison Guards in New York. Here Are Five Takeaways.” The Marshall Project, May 22, 2023. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/05/22/new-york-prison-corrections-officer-discipline-findings. Special Housing Units (SHUs), 28 CFR § 541.21 (2016) Steiner, Benjamin, and Calli M. Cain. “The Relationship Between Inmate Misconduct, Institutional Violence, and Administrative Segregation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” Essay. In Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions , 165–97. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Vera Staff. “Why Are People Sent to Solitary Confinement? The ...” Vera Institute of Justice, March 2021. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/why-are-people-sent-to-solitary-confinement.pdf. Williams, Brie A., Amanda Li, Cyrus Ahalt, Pamela Coxson, James G. Kahn, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo. “The Cardiovascular Health Burdens of Solitary Confinement.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 34, no. 10 (June 21, 2019): 1977–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05103-6. Wilson v. Seiter , Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-7376 (last visited May 2, 2024). Zyvoloski, Sarah. “Impacts of and Alternatives to Solitary Confinement in Adult Correctional Facilities.” St. Katherine University Sophia, May 2018. https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/841?utm_source=sophia.stkate.edu%2Fmsw_papers%2F841&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

*Feature* JPPE INTERVIEW, ANDRE PERRY: Andre Perry is a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, a scholar-in-residence at American University, and a columnist for the Hechinger Report. His work centers around issues of race, structural inequality, and education. His book, Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities , was published earlier this year, and he has had his work featured in MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, among others. May 2020 JPPE: Hey everyone, welcome to “The Difference Principle: Power and Inequality in America.” I’m speaking with Andre Perry, who is a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, a Scholar-in-Resident at American University, and a columnist for the Hechinger Report. His work tends to focus on race, structural inequality, and education, and it’s been featured in MSNBC, the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Post, CNN, among other places. He’s also the author of a new book, Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities, and the report deals with the devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods, which deals with findings he produced at Brookings in a study and presented to the U.S. House of Representatives. Hi Andre, how are you? Andre: I’m doing well, good to see you. You forgot to add that I was a fellow when you were an intern at the Brookings Institution, so good to see you again. JPPE: Good to see you again. So the first question is: when you look at the recent movements to shine light on race inequality in the US, what do you see? Andre: Oh, I see an opportunity to really transform policy in the United States in a way that produces equity and upholds the values that the constitution and other similar documents have promoted but not necessarily operationalized. So for me, as a researcher of policy, it’s encouraging to have so many different types of people marching in the streets, demanding change—structural change. So that just gives me the cover to really produce the kind of research and analyses I think is needed during this moment, but it is also part of my life’s work. I’ve been writing and researching structural inequality for years, and so this is my time— this is (my) equivalent of a super bowl—when it comes to structural inequality. There’s so much at stake, and we have an opportunity to truly change and transform the way we distribute resources and services in this country, so I’m looking forward to the years ahead. JPPE: And I saw that you began your earlier work with a focus on education. You spent time as an educator, and as a dean I saw as well, which I didn’t know, actually. And your most recent book and a recent report that you wrote for Brookings deals with these issues of housing, and you set up your book with what I thought was a really interesting anecdote where you describe your family background with an estranged biological mother and a father who was killed in prison at 27, and then you discuss it in the context of these feelings of not belonging and seem to extend that to the black experience in America. In your testimony in front of the House you said, “The value of assets building schools leadership and lend itself are inextricably linked to the perceptions of black people. How much of the demand that impacts housing price is affected by how people are perceived,” and it seemed that in your book you emphasized this point through the case studies that you highlighted in order to show this idea that our concept of equity is corrupted by an idea that white people are the “gold standard.” Practically, this manifested in the tangible form of black real estate being devalued by as much as 156,000,048,000 dollars. So, where did that shift to housing come from, and why did you choose to orient towards that? Andre: You know, kids don’t live in schools; they live in communities. Often times, when we are talking about academic performance, we ignore all of the other structural barriers that impede a child’s education. I wanted to examine all those other structures that impact children, so I could get at how they impact education, and what was clear to me is that it’s almost impossible to isolate education as a root cause of inequality, but a lot of people try to do that. They’ll say, “if we could only fix the school then everything will be alright.” JPPE: Right. Andre: And, you know, that’s just not true. So much of academic performance is predicted by forces outside of school: what kind of job your parents have, what kind of education your grandfather had, home prices, transportation, the criminal justice system. All of these things have an impact on children’s and parents’ lives, which end up playing out in the schools themselves. So I wanted to say, “hey, so enough of blaming schools for society’s problems with policy” because when you blame schools, you essentially have little room but to blame teachers and students and people in that school, and that’s just misguided. I say throughout my book—and it’s become a mantra of mine— that there is nothing wrong with black people that ending racism can’t solve. I say that to get to that we’ve got to stop blaming black people. There’s this white supremacist myth that says the conditions of black cities and neighborhoods are a direct result of people in them, and that white supremacist myth also plays out in our efforts to reform schools. We blame teachers, we blame students, we blame school boards, but we treat school boards and school districts like we treat black districts—we treat black school boards and black districts like we treat black people. “We will take them over, we will impose all kinds of restrictions on them, we do things we would never think of doing to a white district.” And so I started looking at other sectors and said, “hey, teachers are not to blame here.” In particular, black teachers: in my education chapter in Know Your Price, I outline the added value that black teachers bring in particular, and so when you see reform hit hard in many districts, and you see a reduction in the black workforce, you go, “hey, this is contradictory to what to the goal of reform is, and that’s to provide opportunity.” And people have to remember: kids eventually grow up and become adults, and we’re cutting off job opportunities for black folks—what the heck are we educating black people for? So the point is that I wanted to look beyond education in schools, because it is often used—or school reform is often used— to advocate our responsibilities for dealing with all the other structures that impede growth in black children and families’ lives. JPPE: So when you think about those other structures that impede growth, how do you delineate some of the other forces that have played a role in rising inequality since the 1970s that people might talk about: financializiation, technological disruption, globalization, and so on? How do you delineate that from the things that are specifically affecting black communities and the role of racism? Andre: Well, I took an approach where I wanted to identify assets that we could measure in terms of the impact of racism on it. And then what I did was I just started going asset by asset and just examining the impact of racism, and eventually I will have some grand theory of how all these things come together. But at least for now I just started looking at different sectors, and this is where housing came into play. Housing—there’s so much data that you can pull from to measure housing. And what we did in preparation for the book—and it’s sort of the anchor study—we examined housing prices and black neighborhoods where the share of the black population was greater than fifty percent and compared them to neighborhoods where the share of the black population was less than fifty percent. And a lot of people say, “yeah the black neighborhood prices are going to be lower because of crime, because of education.” So, we sought out just to control for many different social factors just to get an “apples- to-apples “comparison. And after controlling for all those things as well as many of the “Zillow metrics” you see, we found that homes in black neighborhoods are devalued by twenty-three percent, about 48,000 per home, accumulative there is about 156 billion in lost equity, and we know that people use that equity to start businesses. In fact it would have started up more than four million businesses based on the average amount blacks use to start up their firms. It would have funded more than eight million four-year degrees based on the average cost of a public four-year degree. It’s a big number. And I look at the devaluation, and the reason I say devaluation is because, again, these assets are strong, but they are devalued, often times purposely, through policy. And so my goal with this is—I’m not quite there where I can offer up a grand theory that could be applied to things like globalization and commercialization and things like that. However, I do know we have plenty of evidence to say that the value of assets are mitigated by their proximity to blackness. And we’re corrupted in terms of how we value these particular assets by the preconceived notions of whiteness and blackness, obviously whiteness being of higher value and blackness being of lower value. That plays out many different ways; you just saw, my study looked at home prices, but there was just a major study that was just released that’s getting a lot of headlines that shows that black communities pay more in property taxes than their white counterparts. Thirteen percent more. JPPE: Wow. Andre: And that generally comes about because there’s always been municipalities that charge black communities higher in taxes because of this perceived over-usage of services. They perceive black people overusing services, so they charge higher rates, but that’s also come from just a negative perception. These things play out many different ways. I just identified, like, six different ways devaluation occurs and hope to keep adding onto those ways so I’ll be able to offer a theory of sorts in the future. JPPE: Well, one question I have just listening to you talk about that is: I kind of wonder how you deal with the issue of hearts of minds, of there being these ingrained ideological forces that are just baked into the psyche of people, where there is a certain underlying racism. How do you deal with something like that? Because it seems like that might be difficult to address with just a single policy. Andre: I wrote the book—it’s a policy book, but it’s narrated using first-person narrative. I use a lot of biographical sketches, lots of case studies because getting at this issue of changing hearts and minds, I think you have to do both. You can’t simply make the head case to people. You also have to make a heart case, and more importantly, you have to make a case for culture change. I wanted to show how these racist ideas and devaluations play out in the lives of researchers, family members so they could see—in sort of real terms—what this means or what this says about our culture and what we need to change. So I think people will be pleased to see that I’m talking about a lot of heady policy ideas, and I try my best to scrub all the jargon off of them and really talk plainly. That’s something I always recommend policy folks do: don’t get caught up in your own policy community and talk your way out of compelling others to join in on the fun. But I purposely really try to bring out the data in the context of the lived experience so that people can really absorb them in a way that can excite change. You can’t do just a heart case or a culture case—you have to have something that addresses the real concerns in terms of intellectual nature of the policy. Is it harmful? Is it negative? And you have to show it in the numbers, and numbers don’t mean much when culture will overrun it. We see that in terms of bad policymaking. We will push bad policy because it fits into our notion of what America is or what we think it should be, and so we have thousands locked up in cages right now along the US-Mexico border because of negative perceptions of brown folks. We have got to look at culture when we talk about policy, and so that’s what I think my book does. JPPE: And when you look at how to build opposition to race inequality, in addition to cultural movements and engaging with people and as you said, changing hearts of minds, there are also these political questions of how you choose to champion policies that can help reduce race inequality and the effects of systemic racism wherever it might appear. One question I want to ask is about how best to do that. One the one hand, you might make the case that by championing general progressive causes that might level inequality and create equality of opportunity. You might be able to address some issues of race inequality through something like that, and it seems like there were subtexts of that when President Obama was running in 2008 when he was championing what became the Affordable Care Act. So how do you weigh the benefits and trade-offs of emphasizing these broad and underlying economic issues that really speak to—or attempt to speak to— everyone versus focusing more narrowly on: how do we deal with the specific problems that are spurring race inequality? Andre: People don’t understand how anti-black legislation negatively impacts the entire country. You can actually produce policy responses to racism that address the anti-black policies of the past while showing how this will have a positive impact on us all. You know, I look at housing devaluation and show how home prices in black neighborhoods are lower. Now, white people live in those neighborhoods too, and their home prices are lower, too. If you address the anti-black nature of housing pricing, then you improve the quality for a whole lot of people, not just black folks. So in addition, we still have to address race and racism. To say that the impacts of red-lining, which by the homeowner’s loan order corporations in thirties which drew red lines around black-majority neighborhoods, deeming them unworthy of investment in the form of low-interest home loans, that practice haunts black people to this day. The wealth gap is enormous. The immediate wealth of white families about 170 thousand and compare to seventeen thousand for black families. About ten times difference between the two. That was created because of anti-black policy, and we have to have remedies for those who have suffered because of that anti-black policy. So, what’s interesting is that after COVID—after three weeks of COVID and social distancing— people were saying, “give me . . . I need relief for my business, I need relief to pay the bills,” and I say, “well, try being socially distanced for generations.” And so yes, black communities need relief. You can call it a relief package, you can call it reparations, you can call it some type of race-based solution, but what COVID made clear is that the federal government has a responsibility of uplifting its citizens when times are hard, particularly when the federal government caused the harm. You know, between slavery, Jim Crow segregation, legal housing segregation, a biased criminal justice system. All of those things have caused harm—extreme harm—to the economics prospects, the social prospects of black Americans, and we need to remedy those. So yes, we can address anti-black policy by showing how it lifts all folks, so to speak, but if we really want to be equitable, the country should rally behind providing the kind of relief to black residents and citizens that is similar to how we provided relief to white people after the depression and other groups. JPPE: And certainly one thing that’s interesting about this moment, too, is that there are a lot of calls for policies and ideas that might have seemed radical a decade ago. Discussions of reparations or defunding the police seem much more widespread, at least to me, and I’m wondering, when you look at policies that are important to champion right now, what are some that you would like to see particularly? And if we removed the question of political feasibility, what are some policies that you ideally would like to see? Andre: Well, I have to say, I am absolutely ecstatic about the “defund the police” movement, and I’ll tell you why. Not only does it get at what is important in terms of increasing economic mobility, it also says that we need to move money in ways that reflect our priorities as a country and as a neighborhood. So, it’s clear that investments in police literally arrest economic mobility of the residents. I say this all the time: nothing says that a black man doesn’t belong in an economy like a police officer carefully kneeling in the back of the neck of a person and taking his life in broad daylight. That’s a statement about belonging in a community, and so for me, we’ve got to really look at this “defund the police” movement seriously as a framework. I’ve been telling people, “what’s your defund the police in education?” It’s obvious you can actually defund policing in schools—there’s a direct link—but the point is, what money are we going to move to excite economic growth? For me, I’m excited about this moment because we’re really putting a spotlight on the barriers—the structural barriers. It’s not upholding the tradition that black people are to blame, that parents are to blame. . . We’re getting at policy, real policy, real practices that have significant impacts on our daily lives. JPPE: I want to conclude with a quote from your book that I think speaks to a lot of what you just said. You said, “I want people to fight for power. It means getting elected. Sometimes it means going out in the streets. It means going into court with devaluation data that I’ve produced. It means suing the appraisal community. It’s going to take a lot of mobilization because again, racism doesn’t just go away. This is a conversation about power and taking what’s rightfully ours.” What do you say to people who say that they don’t necessarily want to work within the system; that it hasn’t gotten better and it won’t so long as they work within the system because the system has continued to find new ways to calcify inequalities on the one hand or generally preserve its towers of privilege? Andre: Well, I say, to them, protests and movements that are directly confronting the systems and the harms of systems—we need that. You don’t get change without outside agitation. And sometimes that might look like something burning in the streets. It might come in the form of marches. It might come from civil unrest in many different forms. But, let’s be clear: you don’t get police reform in this country by working within the system. You get it from what we’ve seen from over the last few months: by hitting the streets, demanding change, crowding the courtroom, and finding alternative means of being. At some point we need different types of housing structures. We need to look at cooperative housing, for instance. We need new ideas around community—neighborhood—safety. We need new systems, and that’s going to come from the outside. It’s going to come from demanding change. So for me, I see my role as an insider—you know I work at a mainstream think-tank—but I get energy from folks on the outside. I want to be a resource for folks on the outside. So now I have cover, as a member of a marginalized group, to put forth research and data that often is devalued because I am also devalued as a black man in a mainstream think-tank. So I’m all for working from the outside. That’s the only way change occurs, really—substantive change. For me, I look at television— I march as well, and I’m, like, giddy. I’m like, “yes, this is what we need: doing the things that insiders won’t do.” And that’s why we’re in the position we are today. JPPE: Andre, thanks so much for your time. Andre: Hey, thanks so much for having me.

Mission Statement The Brown University Journal of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (JPPE) is a peer reviewed academic journal for undergraduate and graduate students that is sponsored by the Center for Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Brown University. The JPPE aims to promote intellectual rigor, free thinking, original scholarship, interdisciplinary understanding, and global leadership. By publishing student works of philosophy, politics, and economics, the JPPE attempts to unite academic fields that are too often partitioned into a single academic discourse. In doing so, the JPPE aims to produce a scholarly product greater than the sum of any of its individual parts. By adopting this model, the JPPE attempts to provide new answers to today’s most pressing questions. Julian D. Jacobs '19 Daniel Shemano '19 Five Pillars of the JPPE 1.) Interdisciplinary Intellectualism: The JPPE is committed to engaging with an interdisciplinary approach to academics. By publishing scholarly work within the disciplines of philosophy, politics, and economics, we believe we are producing work that transcends the barriers of any given one field, producing a sum greater than its individual parts. 2.) Diversity: The JPPE emphasizes the importance of diversity in the articles we publish, authors we work with, and questions we consider. The JPPE is committed to equal opportunities and creating an inclusive environment for all our employees. We welcome submissions and job applicants regardless of ethnic origin, gender, religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, or age. 3.) Academic Rigor: In order to ensure that the JPPE is producing quality student scholarship, we are committed to a peer review process, whereby globally renowned scholars review all essays prior to publication. We expect our submissions to be well written, well argued, well researched, and innovative. 4.) Free Thinking and Original Arguments: The JPPE values free thinking and the contribution of original ideas. We seek excellent arguments and unique methods of problem solving when looking to publish an essay. This is one way in which JPPE is hoping to contribute to the important debates of our time. 5.) Global Leadership: By publishing work in philosophy, politics, and economics, we hope the JPPE will serve as a useful tool for future world leaders who would like to consider pressing questions in new ways, using three powerful lenses.

Peaceful Animals A Look into Black Pacifism and the Pedagogy of Civil Rights in American Public Education Jade Fabello The University of Texas at Austin Author Anchita Dasgupta Alexander Ogilvy Alexis Biegen Audrey McDermott Editors Fall 2019 Download full text PDF (9 pages) The following are the key points of the American civil rights movement according to current United States public education curricula. First, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King nobly campaigned for peace and nonviolence. Then Rosa Parks, feeling tired, refused to give up her seat on a bus. Another figure, Malcolm X, was similar to King but he was violent. And then tragically, a random actor shot Dr. King in the cheek. That is where the story usually ends. American racial tensions subsided until the election of Barack Obama. This oversimplification reflects the entirety of the knowledge imparted to many who have experienced the United States public education system. American history education is, in a word, lacking. United States history curricula downplay the impact felt by marginalized groups in this country, producing alarming results. This paper asserts that the pedagogy of Black history in American middle and high school public education centers around convenient and pointed narratives. Especially with regard to forms of protests during the civil rights movement, these narratives have been intentionally structured in a manner that, by way of purposeful omission and harmful misinterpretation, promote the passivity and pacifism of Black Americans. Obtaining accurate and comprehensive information about the Black American condition is an endeavor that one must explicitly elect to partake in. Simple reflection by anyone who has been exposed to American public education reveals that the most prominent figures discussed are white. The history of minority groups seldom sees the light within core curricula. This contemporary self-taught requirement for knowledge acquisition directly parallels to American Slavery. As explored in Self-Taught: African American Education in Slavery and Freedom by Heather Andrea Williams, African Americans’ quest for education has historically been an uphill battle. Unsurprisingly, society rarely provided enslaved individuals a means to an education. The barriers to literacy and other such skills have historically been high. In 1830, North Carolina passed a statute making the education of slaves—either by freedmen or other slaves—a harshly punishable crime. The internal logic of the law operated with an understanding of the relationship between denial of education and self-preservation of the system. As Frederick Douglass states in The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave: “The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers." By affording knowledge and context to the oppressed, the oppressor risks lessening their status as such. Douglass’ education directly facilitated his liberation and eventual coalescence into the abolition movement. While the laws may have changed, the mechanisms that work to suppress Black political action remain as a product of Black history education. To understand this, one must first endeavor to comprehend the pedagogical evolution of the gravest ill inflicted upon Black bodies in America: equating Black people with animals. Intense and categorical dehumanization is a central part of the institution of slavery. In the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: the Three-Fifths Compromise, the language of dehumanization of Black people is codified into the most important document of the American polity. Societal justifications and the cognitive dissonance required for the institution of slavery are well discussed in modern academic literature. Broadly speaking, however, the afterlives and scope of the brutality of slavery continue to be poorly understood. In his work The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley, Malcolm X balked at the historical knowledge that the average Black American possessed, saying “it’s unbelievable how many black men and women have let the white man fool them into holding an almost romantic idea of what slave days were like." Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, slavery was often suggested to be a mutually beneficial situation. In return for food and shelter, slaves provided free labor to their masters. This specific framing is fortunately less common than in previous eras. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to assume that this erroneous pedagogy is a relic of the past. In 2015, the New York Times revealed that a textbook by major publishing company McGraw-Hill Education printed the phrase “the Atlantic Slave Trade… brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations." This example of nomenclature choice presents an active rewriting of history. The word “workers” implies a compensation that was non-existent in American slavery. Captured Africans and American Blacks were used as currency; they did not receive it. These specific and at times subtle framings contribute to the understating of American slavery. Every individual choice of diction carries moral and political content. It is in the exact verbiage of American historical documents that laid the groundwork for the evolving and sustained systems of Black oppression. If in contemporary times the basic foundations of Black people being in America are understood as a consensual employment, then the opportunity for discussion of the continued maltreatment of Black people has no foothold. After some controversy, McGraw-Hill Education acknowledged the error. However, the “misprinted” issues will likely circulate for years to come (McAfee). This instance, which some would consider an outlier, does not deviate significantly from the actual standards. Improvement from past pedagogies is undeniable, however, the present approach to education does not adequately capture the brutalities and atrocities of enslavement. The current educational system cannot afford proper context for the current state of being for the Black individual, without recognizing the inhuman cruelty that has been historically inflicted upon the Black community in America. Simultaneously, members of unafflicted groups have less of a basis from which they can understand contentions asserting the continued existence of institutional racism. Racism is deeply woven into many facets of society, making it difficult to pinpoint parties solely responsible for the historical miseducation of American youth. However, when it comes to a substantial portion of the information diffused throughout the nation, few governing bodies have more of a direct impact than the Texas Board of Education. Former social studies textbook editor Dan Quinn states: “What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks." The Texas market for textbooks is unequivocally large. Therefore, the guidelines set in place by this body have profound implications on the textbooks received by much of the nation. This reality is extremely troublesome when we look at both statements made by board officials and some of the recent sets of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), which outlines the curriculum required for Texas public schools. After the board adopted the then-new standards in 2010, board member Pat Hardy was quoted saying “there would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights." While this statement is from 2010, its impact and that of other comments like it are still apparent and intensely relevant. A 2018 survey of one thousand high school seniors by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that only eight percent of students can correctly identify slavery as the central cause of the civil war. Attempts to relegate slavery to an insignificant role takes away agency from Black individuals who sought their liberation through their tireless strife against slavery. Correcting pedagogy is a particularly challenging endeavor. The agents of that change—educators and guideline setters—are often the products of miseducation themselves. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that “teachers struggle to do justice to the nation’s legacy of racial injustice. They are poorly served by state standards and frameworks, popular textbooks and even their own academic preparation." The Texas State Board of Education did recently agree to acknowledge the centrality of slavery in the Civil War. While credit is due, this is merely a starting line and does not rectify the other deficiencies in standards or the in-classroom experience of teaching with racial ineptitude. The official TEKS has only included Jim Crow Laws and the Ku Klux Klan as teaching requirements as of the November 2018 revisions. This former exclusion again has contributed to the dismissal of suffering crucial to contextualization. However, the document has long since mentioned the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King (TEA 7). King’s remarkable contributions towards assisting the Black condition are undeniable and merit inclusion into educational standards. However, the way the American education system broaches King further promotes the pacification of the Black race. The current collective consciousness greatly downplays the radicalism of King and fellow Civil Rights leader Rosa Parks. Peter Dreier, a professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy department at Occidental College, discusses how “in the popular legend, Parks is portrayed as a tired old seamstress…who, on the spur of the moment...decided to resist the city’s segregation law by refusing to move to the back of the bus on December 1, 1955." However, Dreier continues to explain that the reality of the situation was that the move came as a result of a massive coordinated effort on the part of veteran activists. This account is corroborated by (among other sources) Taylor Branch’s Parting the Waters , Stewart Burns’ Daybreak of Freedom: The Montgomery Bus Boycott , and Rosa Parks’ autobiography, My Story . The removal from America’s shared memory of the careful and calculated effort to dismantle Jim Crow sells short the scale of the effort required to uproot institutional boundaries. He continues, “Contemporary struggles for justice...may seem modest by comparison to the movements of the 1960s that began in Montgomery in 1955." The false yet ubiquitous narrative of the she was tired, so she sat cause and effect ignores the radical line of thinking that openly and actively defies American racism. The simplification of Parks’ actions in education resources does not accurately depict the radical schools of thought that she exemplified. The pacified version of King, provided to the average American student, debases his radical ideas and uses them to combat current political and social movements. King has often been haphazardly invoked in attempts to pacify or condemn post-police brutality rioters or NFL protesters. We live in a time where it is antiquated to believe that online comments hold no relevance in the grander discourse. The term internet “trolls” is currently included in official reports created by top United States Federal Agencies. Posts on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter or other such sites are legitimate reflections of the society in which they originated. As such, the vitriol and ignorance found in online commentary are troubling indications of mass miseducation. Politicians and individuals use specifically-curated King quotes to fit whatever narrative is convenient. This pacified version of King is then in turn used to pacify Black people. These protest-dissenting claims bear no mind to the wider breadth of the King library of thought—which includes the September 27th, 1966 CBS interview, in which King stated: “I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard." Dr. King’s vocabulary was not limited to the four word phrase “I have a dream.” While he may not have endorsed violence in the context of social movements, it is apparent that King’s thoughts on riots would not align with those who often champion his name. In modern America, King is near universally understood to be a figure worthy of praise. It is so often forgotten that King was fiercely unpopular with the majority of society for much of his life. In 1966, the Gallup measure of King polled his admiration levels at 32% positive and 63% negative. Yet modern mythos takes this for granted. The education system inserts into popular consciousness a particular mold of how an oppressed Black person seeking change should act. That mold is a very corrupted memory of Dr. King. To call King strictly nonviolent is itself misleading. While King’s rhetoric may have been very deliberate, one can not divorce racism from violence. King and his followers employed a disciplined sacrifice of the Black body. The violence was there. It simply was not directed towards white bodies or white property. We are presented with King because he comparatively easy to digest. His general message of nonviolence is malleable. Little to no emphasis is regarded to the failures, shortcomings, and bitter reality of the civil rights movement as a means for achieving social change. Despite King’s desire to expose the grave violence of racism, the presented, pared down version of him does not force us as a collective to deeply explore the gravity of the injustices placed against Black people. A firehose directed at protestors, while shocking and horrific, still rests easier on people’s minds than the state-sponsored murder of Black Panther Captains. Further, the High School TEKS does briefly mention the Black Panther Party for the sake of contrasting their beliefs with those of MLK. The author of this paper, themself a product of Texas high school public education, can attest that in practice this comparison amounts to a further dismissal of the validity of their actions—while touting King’s “peaceful” approach. Neither the middle school nor high school TEKS makes reference to King’s influential counterpart, Malcolm X. Again anecdotally, mentions of Malcolm X consists of characterizing him as violent and little else. In the civil rights section of the San Jacinto Museum’s Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History , which aligns with TEKS, Non-Violent Protest is the first critical vocabulary point. Shortly thereafter, the curriculum suggests that “students should have a basic knowledge of the rights of United States’ citizens to petition the government for a solution to grievances." Again, while there is validity in discussion around this form of protest, the same section draws the parallel to the “Declaration of Independence as a list of complaints by the colonists against King George in England." It is ironic that a proudly boasted and bloody revolution was subsequent to that list of complaints, while Black Power groups, which almost exclusively subscribed to revolutionary mentalities, receive no mention in the Guide. In America, “violence” is an acceptable means to achieve an end as long as those who carry it out are not of a dark complexion. The themes of what has been selectively chosen to receive praise or condemnation in our teachings of history, while not surprising, have dire implications. In America, passivity and pacifism are standards that are disproportionately held to Black and Brown bodies. Malcolm X articulated this point to an LA crowd in 1962: The white man is tricking you. He’s trapping you. He doesn’t call it violence when he lands troops in South Vietnam. He doesn’t call it violence when he lands troops in Berlin. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, he didn’t say get nonviolent. He said, “Praise the Lord but pass the ammunition.” The double standard outlined by X places boundaries on current political efforts lest they risk misaligning with the beliefs of the deified King. The complexities of Malcolm X’s ever-evolving racial beliefs cannot be justly covered within the scope of this paper. But the classification of his actions and beliefs as merely violent is wildly inaccurate and harmful. X’s more direct and introspective approach presents a perspective that we can not afford to remove from education standards. Major influential names of the Black Power movement similarly receive no mention. For example, the status quo completely ignores the perspectives of Fred Hampton, the young Panther captain who was assassinated by the FBI, and Robert F. Williams, author of the book Negroes with Guns . This erasure limits both Americans’ understanding of the context in which these ideologies evolved and their understanding of the options available to combat systemic oppression. The omission of these figures is indicative of a larger narrative that operates under the impression that Blacks are innately dangerous creatures, and therefore should not be encouraged to take a bold and active role in liberation, lest they risk harming white Americans. America frowns upon the idea that Blacks should either want or need to defend themselves. The absence of these individuals (X included) from not only TEKS but the AP US History Guideline and Common Core standards is indicative of the devaluation of an entire school of thought. There are subjective flaws in the ideologies of both King and X. However, by only providing a simplified and one-sided narrative of the pursuit for Black Liberation, the historical curriculum discourages radical approaches of combating deeply rooted problems. Education’s intrinsic relationship with a successful society is best defined by iconic author James Baldwin in 1963: Man is a social animal. He cannot exist without a society...Now the crucial paradox which confronts us here is that the whole process of education occurs within a social framework and is designed to perpetuate the aims of society. Thus, for example, the boys and girls who were born during the era of the Third Reich, when educated to the purposes of the Third Reich, became barbarians. The paradox of education is precisely this—that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. The purpose of education, finally, is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself…But no society is really anxious to have that kind of person around. What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish. By leaving out parts of the story, the United States stifles the consistent efforts of radicals and revolutionaries to reveal evidence of how the country has undermined the civil rights of Black Americans in the past and present. Our education system helps to perpetuate a narrative of both Black inhumanity and Black pacifism. In order to give Black youth the tools to contextualize and confront the contemporary manifestations of racism that our education system neglects to address, US public education must deliberately address the duality of the civil rights movement: a struggle for Black Liberation that has been both peaceful and violent. Works Cited "Act Passed by the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina at the Session of 1830—1831" (Raleigh: 1831). “AP® United States History Including the Curriculum Framework.” College Board Web. 5 Dec. 2016. Baldwin, James. "The Negro Child - His self Image." 16 October 1963, Lecture. Brown, Emma, “Texas officials: Schools should teach that slavery was ‘side issue’ to Civil War.” The Washington Post. Web. 5 December 2016. Colins, Gail @nybooks. "How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us." The New York Review of Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. Douglass, Frederick, Gregory Stephens, and Peter J. Gomes. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Dreier, Peter. "Rosa Parks: Angry, Not Tired." Dissent 53.1 (2006): 88-92. Web. Fernandez, Manny, and Christine Hauser. "Texas Mother Teaches Textbook Company a Lesson on Accuracy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 2015. Web. 13 Sept. 2016. Gallup, Inc. “Martin Luther King Jr.: Revered More After Death Than Before.” Gallup.com, 16 Jan. 2006,news.gallup.com/poll/20920/martin-luther-king-jr-revered-More-after- death-than-before.aspx. McAfee, Meloncyee. "McGraw-Hill to Rewrite Textbook after Mom's Complaint." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School McGaughy, Lauren. “Texas History Curriculum: Hillary Clinton and Alamo 'Heroes' Are in. Oprah's Out.” Dallas News, 16 Nov. 2018, www.dallasnews.com/news/education/ 2018/11/13/texas-education-board-debate-eliminating-helen-keller-hillary-clinton-others-history-curriculum. Officers Title: Common Core State Standard. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C. Copyright Date: 2010 Pittman,Yvonne, Appleby, Elizabeth, and Stuthers, Lisa. “Curriculum Guide for Teaching Texas History.” San Jacinto Museum of History One Monument Circle. Jan 8. 2013 Rothman, Lily, "What Martin Luther King Jr Really Thought About Riots." Time. Time, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “Teaching Hard History American Slavery.” Web. 17 Nov. 2018. Texas Education Agency (TEA). "Texas Education Agency - Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Chapter 113. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies " Texas Education Agency -Welcome to the Texas Education Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2016. United States. NSA, CIA, FBI. ICA. Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Williams, Heather Andrea. Self-taught: African American Education in Slavery and Freedom. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 2005. Print. X, Malcolm “The White Man is Tricking You!” Nation of Islam. Los Angeles 22 May, 1962 X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine, 1992. Print.