Tag: society

On Iran’s nuclear program: an alternative view

Posted on by fqzhang

Iranian nuclear program has drawn a significant amount of international attention – and condemnation – since it was uncovered in the early 2000s. While the issue is complex and multifaceted, I believe a few points should be examined. First, why is the Iranian government desirous of a nuclear program? And do the people really want it? Second, how should the rest of the world respond to it? Are the current negotiations with Iran the best way to approach this issue? And lastly, how should we all proceed from here?

The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld once said that “Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they woul6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f31467c8833-640wid be crazy.” Although his words may seem extreme, we need to understand what motivated the Iranian leadership to develop nuclear power, even in the face of mounting international oppositions. The Iranians’ own argument is that they need to secure their own energy needs in the form of nuclear power. This argument is hardly plausible: Iran is sitting on the world’s second largest reserves (after Russia) of natural gas. Iran’s South Pars gas field alone is estimated to contain 14×10^12 m3 of gas, around 5.6% of the entire world’s prove gas reserves. Moreover, the country contains the 4th largest reserves of oil in the world. Iran’s energy needs can largely be satisfied by its oil and natural gas, as can be seen in the chart below. iran energyIf energy security is not the real reason, then what is? The true reasons for such a program, I believe, includes the following:

  1. Scientific and cultural prestige: Let’s imagine that the Iranians do not in fact want to build a nuclear weapon (a highly unlikely assumption for reasons that I will explain later), the mere fact that Iran is capable of developing advanced technology is something that the Iranian government can be proud of. In Iran, like many other parts of the world, scientific advances symbolizes the greater progress made in a society. The Iranian government sought to legitimize itself by promoting science and technology (much like the Soviet Union spent tremendous efforts in space exploration to legitimize the ideology of Communism). The Iranian people want to see progress being made in a variety of different fields, whether it be a rocket launch or a prospective nuclear power generation plant. Iran is gaining prestige by possessing those technologies. In a sense, scientific prestige is also tied into cultural prestige. We need to remember that Iran is more of a historical civilization than a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. The Iranian people had inhabited the Iranian Plateau for thousands of millenniums, and for much of that period Iran (or Persia, as it is known for most of its history), is a leading force among the world’s nations, and not merely in technology. It is in early modern times that Iran had fallen behind. In a way, many Iranians want to regain that sense of pride which have belonged to them historically. As heirs to a rich cultural heritage, Iranians today no doubt want to relive a part of its ancient glories; developing nuclear powers along the lines of other advanced nations will symbolize a part of this regaining of prestige.Mideast-Iran-Nuclear-_Horo2
  2. Competition from regional powers: Let’s take a look at how the world appears from the position of Iran, and why its nuclear ambitions will likely lead to nuclear weapons. Geographically, Iran couldn’t be in a more dangerous position. As the map below shows, Iran is surrounded by potential or probable enemies. To its west, Iraq, despite its Shia majority (the majority religion in Iran), is embroiled in a complicated civil war with the radical Islamic State (IS). Further west, we see a similar situation in Syria, where Iran-backed government of Bashar al-Assad is fighting a multi-front war against IS and moderate rebel forces. Each of these governments, if they fall, would produce a serious threat to Iran itself; and these are just the militant organizations. Organized threats by nation-states posed a bigger problem still. In its southwest, across the Persian Gulf, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ferociously anti-Iranian and possesses a powerful modern military and an alliance with the United States; other Sunni Gulf States are no more friendlier. Further to the west, Iran faces the strongest military power in the region in the state of Israel, which had spear-headed efforts to contain the Iranian enrichment program. Further to its north and east, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India are all nuclear powers. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Iran felt that by developing the bomb, it can achieve a sort of parity with the other regional and global powers, at least in part to compensate for its relatively conventional forces.
  3. Security and Geopolitical leverage: In a point related to the second one, we need to be aware of the fact that Iran really has no natural allies. Culturally, it is the product of thousands of years of Persian civilization centered in the plateau of Iran, influenced by the forces of Shia Islam for centuries (today, an absolute majority of the world’s Shia Muslims lives in Iran), and the rise of political Islam in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For good or bad, few other countries possess such a unique historical experience. While this is a point of pride for many Iranians, at the same time, this also meant that Iran cannot count on any natural allies in the sense that the UK can rely on the US or Kuwait can rely on Saudi Arabia. The allies and friends it does have among governments are less than appealing: Iraq is bogged down in a struggle of a sectarian nature between Shia-dominated government and Sunni militant Islamists; likewise Syria is fighting its seemingly interminable civil war; the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon is considered an ally and a way for Iran to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, but is categorized as a terrorist group (its military wings at Shia_Crescentleast) by most governments around the world. Strategically, Russia can be considered an ally, but that nation is struggling in the face of western sanctions for its involvement in the Crimea and a falling oil price. (For a discussion of how falling oil prices are influencing foreign policies in Russia and Iran, see here). Iran is looking for new partners in China and India by offering them energy security; but this venture will be unlikely to result in any serious partnerships, especially if this partnership would result in possible international retaliations by the West. Iran is therefore left to defend itself against a myriad of threats. In this case, a nuclearized Iran can protect itself, or so the Iranian leadership believed, from military blackmailing. At the same time, Iran can project its power in what is known as the “Shia Crescent”, an area encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, shaping itself into a regional power. Iran believes that thus nuclear power adds more muscle to its voice in regional and international affairs.

Needless to say, no matter what the reasons are for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear power, the rest of the world cannot be happy about the emergence of another potential nuclear power. However, the present countries that possess nuclear powers are in fact rebuilding their own respective nuclear arsenals even while they are denouncing the Iranian’s attempts to do so. We see that the rest of the world has been upgrading their own nuclear arsenals as well. In a recent article on Business Insider, the dangers of a nuclear war is emphasized more than ever before. However, the difference is that Iran is widely seen as an irresponsible government, and weapons in the hands of such a state is a worrying fact. But how should the rest of the world respond to it? Along the lines of journalist Fareed Zakaria, I believe that there are two main ways for the world to respond: 1. Forcing a Regime Change, or 2. Forcing a Policy Change. Let’s briefly define what each option meant and discuss their relative merits later:

  1. Regime Change:

In essence this would involve the fomenting of dissent, support democratic political movements, and with outside help in trying to overthrow the government of Iran in one form or another. Most likely, the United States would be the leader in such an effort. In the meanwhile, the US and other parts of the world should not have anything to do with Iran since it is an illegitimate government in their eyes. In the views many, the only way to properly address the nuclear situation with Iran is wait (or help) the government to change and then deal with them later.

  1. Policy Change:

This would mean that we will actively engage with the present government of Iran, treating them as an equal partner in these discussions, and really accept the fact that the government of Iran, however repulsive, is here to stay for some time to come. The dialogues will be conducted in an open manner and be peaceful in trying to reach a deal with Iran. For supporters of this option, they do not believe that this is a policy of appeasement, but rather, a step-by-step method toward achieving our objective, whatever they may be.

As a sophomore in college, I may not be in the best position to recommend foreign policy to those in the highest levels of government. But, nevertheless, I believe that here in the US and the rest of the world that does not desire to see a nuclearized Iran, have to decide on an option fast and not to oscillate back and forth between these two options. How can you possibly struck a deal with a government that you have every intention to help overthrow? Personally, I believe that the best option remains to bring Iran back into the international system, which it had been an outcast member since 1979, and to engage with it in more direct dialogue. We need to bring in international partners, which must include China, India and Russia, to discuss options with the Iranians on what to do. We must make Iran as an equal partner in its negotiations and not treat it as a criminal state. We need to recognize Iranian interests and why they sought to nuclearize themselves and to stress our own positions and concerns in why we do not want to see a nuclear program: no, it is not that we desire to encircle Iran on all sides, and no it is not that we desire to see a weakened Iran that is susceptible to invasions at any given moment. There are too much distrust and misconceptions between Iran and the West at the moment, each is mistrusting the other’s intentions. Therefore, if we can build an international coalition on resolving the issue, we can legitimize our intentions and make the Iranians understand that it is in the interest of the rest of world for them to denuclearize.

Current policies in delaying Iran’s nuclear programs have many merits to them. Firstly, the alternative, that of calling Iran to immediately destroy their nuclear facilities, will only strengthen their resolves in continuing to build them. If not in open, then in secret. Therefore, delaying what Iran has been attempting to do, by years (a very possible prospect), leaves the rest of the world with more options in dealing with the government. But more importantly, it buys the rest of the world time. The structure of government itself may likely change with the passage of years. I do not necessarily mean a revolution, but rather a gradual process of liberalization that will see a new generation of Iranian leaders that do not want to confront the world and or is filled with xenophobia, but rather sought peaceful coexistence. Younger generations of Iranian do not have the fervors of religious fanaticism that may have characterized some of their parents; in fact, I believe that many young Iranians today want to embrace the international system and be a part of modern society. I believe that will the passage of time, Iran can be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system and we can work with Iran toward this issue. However, in order to do this, we must first talk openly with Iran.

The importance of continuing dialogue with Iran cannot be overstated. If left isolated, Iran will retreat into itself and develop and deepen a paranoia of the rest of the world and perhaps the unthinkable will happen: a nuclearized Iran ready to use its weapons on its neighbors and beyond. As a historical analogy, imagine what if Henry Kissinger had never traveled to China to open up dialogue with that secluded nation, China today would possibly have been another North Korea: a government that is isolated and clung to an outdated ideology with a belligerent attitude toward the rest of the world. But to the credit of the US government (both the executive and the State department), rather than seeing this happen, the US government actively engaged with Chinese leadership and brought China into the international community of nations; a community that China has a stake in. In a similar line, I believe that by keeping the dialogue option open with Iran, we can hope to make some progress. Of course, this can only happen with Iranian commitment as well, and it needs to tone down the rhetoric against its neighbors and their allies, most notably Israel and the United States; it needs to show real commitment in following through with its promises; but above all, Iran needs to see that it is to its own security and benefit that it becomes a part of the international system rather than a challenger to it. Perhaps, eventually, Iran will be able to develop its own peaceful nuclear program, much as how Japan and South Korea has developed them, without feeling the need to weaponize it. All of these will likely take an enormous amount of time, likely decades; but I believe that in the end, the path of continued negotiations and dialogues with Iran will be preferable to any other alternative.

For related topics see:

Resource dependency, oil price decline, and the reshaping of the international order

Oil companies and the ethics of overseas investment

GDP: how accurate are they?

Posted on by fqzhang

As educated citizens, there is no single measure of economy that we care more about than the GDP figure. Any increase or decrease in the change of GDP growth rate are bound to make national headlines. Witness the news media frenzy following the GDP figure release for China:

China GDP 2015 GDP news

Clearly, as a society, we regard the GDP figure as something more than a number that measures how large the economy is or the rate at which it is expanding (or contracting); but rather, we see GDP as almost a sacred figure. We take pride in our national economic output, we base our consumer confidence based on these numbers, and more importantly, politicians and decision-makers based their course of actions upon the changes in these numbers from year-to-year. We take the number as something that’s grounded in reality and something that’s unquestionable. And while some would argue about the usefulness of the GDP figure as a measure of the standard of living, most would accept the accuracy of those numbers. But how accurate is it really of a nation’s economic output? Here are several surprising facts that shows that perhaps GDP is not all that it seems. (For a similar list about inflation, click here)

  1. Ghana GDP revision: In 2010, Ghana decided to reexamine its GDP figures by using a different base year to calculate growth over time. The result? GDP was revised upward by over 60%.

Ghana GDP

  1. Nigerian GDP revision: In 2014 Nigeria recalculated its GDP (using a different base year) to include more sectors of the economy such as telecommunications. This recalculation resulted in Nigeria shifting its economic output by upwards of 80% and leading it to become the largest economy on the African continent, surpassing South Africa.

Nigeria's GDP revision

  1. Japan’s GDP calculation mistake: For the 4th quarter of 2012, Japan’s GDP was calculated as shrinking by 0.3%. In reality it increased 0.1%. This miscalculation was the result of a failure to correct seasonally-adjusted figures and misreporting of the GDP deflator (a measure of inflation).

Japan's cities at night

  1. An Excel error and its impacts on public policy debates: In 2010, two economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, published a report claiming that countries with High Debt/GDP ratios have lower growth on average. To support their argument, they used data from 20 advanced economies and calculated their average rate of GDP growth. However, they neglected to select 5 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark) with both high Debt/GDP and GDP growth rates, skewing their result and the conclusions they draw. This mistake had profound implications. Congressmen and others within the federal government cited this as proof that our federal deficit each year needs to be reduced by cutting a variety of programs, so that our economic growth rate may remain unaffected.

GDP excel error

While this is not strictly a GDP error, it shows how a small mistake in calculating GDP data can seriously affect the conclusions drawn from it.

  1. US quarterly GDP revisions: For the first quarter of 2014, US GDP was revised downward a couple of times, each time suggesting that the GDP contracted further on an annualized basis. Much of the downward trend is the result of less-than-expected consumer spending on healthcare, and the lackluster performance of exports. In part, the GDP contraction was due to an exceptionally cold winter in the US.

US quarterly GDP revision

  1. Bank of Canada’s forecasting errors: Even in developed countries, economic forecasts can often go wrong. The Bank of Canada (Canada’s central bank) failed to forecast the small economic downturn in the fall of 2012. The bank of Canada’s forecasts are often overly optimistic. Out of 5 of 7 time periods studied, the average economic growth forecast is 0.6 percentage points higher than the actual; and 75 per cent of medium-term forecasts by the Bank of Canada were overly optimistic.

GDP growth in Canada per capita

So here it is. So the next time you hear in the news about GDP figures, remember that GDP is a number that’s created by people. Most often, these numbers are correct and give a good picture of our nation’s economic health. But at times, we base our GDP figures, past or future, based on faulty or incomplete information. And sometimes, we make plain simple mistakes.

Questions of Identity: What defines our nation?

Posted on by fqzhang

While having dinner at Berkeley’s dining commons, I was talking with an international student from South Korea. We were discussing our respective backgrounds. He was telling about how in South Korea, everyone identifies with one another, mostly in the form of culture and a similar language. He also mentioned an identifying factor that is hard to imagine in the US: race and ethnicity. In Korea, everyone belongs to the Korean “race” and this ethnic identifying factor is important in how Koreans see themselves as a nation. Then he asked me about something that he is confused about: What defines America? What is it that makes America stick together as a nation? Taken aback by this question, I couldn’t come up with a response. Then I stated that in the US, we do not value race, ethnicity, or even culture or language as much; rather, we as Americans share a certain set of values such individualism, respect for the law and democracy. However, as soon as I uttered those words, I realized how textbook like I sound, for these are the responses a course of American politics would probably gave. While he nodded in assent, I myself wasn’t entirely satisfied my response.

I have always enjoyed talking with international students, they often offers a fresh perspective on things that some of us born in the US or living in the US have taken for granted. Take the question of what defines the US for example, I have never thought about how bewildering the American Identity must have seemed to others. We are a nation that is multi-race, multi-religion, multi-cultural, and even multi-lingual (even though English is the de facto language of communication); indeed how is it that the American nation can stay together for so long?

After careful thought, I came to the conclusion our national identity is defined by several values. Most importantly, I believe that the US is defined by our inclusiveness to people of all different background, at the same time, we helped to foster immigrants and native-born citizens with a certain set of values that define America. And I believe the acquisition of an American identity happened in several stages. Firstly, those who immigrated to the United States are already breaking the bound with their old home country for political, religious, economic, and a variety of other regions that causes them to be no longer attached to their old identity. This is important because by forming a new blank slate (a table rasa if you will), a new identity can be imprinted upon them. Secondly, the gradually process of assimilation, or at least acceptance of American culture and the American way of life happens gradually. Through working, interacting with others, watching TV and accessing the internet, individuals can acquire a new perspective on things, a perspective that respects the diversity of American society. One key aspect of this acculturation to the US lies in the learning of the English language. This is not necessary merely for the cultural sense, but also to facilitate the understanding of what the larger society is about. Finally, the acquisition of an American identities is completed when citizens began to appreciate the political institutions of the United States, possess an understanding of the American political culture, and appreciate the nation for what it is. The acquisition of citizenship status is merely a formalization of the process of becoming an American. Throughout this process, a person began to identify more and more closely with the identity of an American.

However, this process of becoming an American is not without its challenges. At each stage of the process, a person may fail to progress to the next stage. For example, a person may remain so attached to their home country that they refuses to accept anything else even though they physically had come to America. Moreover, a person may refuse to learn the English language, or work, or interact with anyone else in the US. Or they may choose to fill their living rooms with foreign media and essentially recreating their home country in America, and isolate themselves from their surroundings. Under these circumstances, a person cannot become an “American” in the cultural sense of the word. And even when they chose to became a citizen, they did not truly complete the process of becoming an American in their heart and mind.

But what about remaining American after we began to identify with each other in a community? I believe that the decision of remaining American is an expression of our personal choice. We take pride in the community in which we belong in. Here, I draw upon the ideas of the famous French theorist, Ernest Renan, who argued that choosing to belong to a nation is a daily process of affirmation in a community. A nation is not a concrete concept that is defined by its borders, institutions, or other perceived similarities. Here in the United States, we are not defined by the 49th parallel North or the Rio Grande, but rather by a set of values and shared experiences that all of us treasure. The fact that we are living together and form a community is a testament to our continual will to be American; for if not, we can easily move away from this country, or “vote with our feet”. Each day, while we might not think of it as such, we are constantly reaffirming our desire to remain American by exercising our right to work, to express our opinions, and paying attention to the things going on around us.

However, this is not without its challenges as well. For the values that define us need to be constantly reinforced through more direct actions such as engagement with the political process by the simple act of voting. As Americans, we not only have rights but also responsibilities and if we neglected some of these simple acts, in a way, we forfeit our right to remain in the American community. If a nation is indeed a larger community of people that chose to remain together, then it is the duty for every member of that nation to constantly reaffirm their commitment to that community through their engagement with the nation and other members of the community. If the members of a nation cease to become engaged with one another, then the nation and the force that is binding it together will cease to function as a cohesive force.

This issue of what defines America affects me personally, for not too long ago, I became a citizen of the United States. As I was sworn in to become an American, I was overcame by a sense of apprehension. For what it is that I need to do, now that I am a member of the American “nation”. Should I behave in a different manner? Are my loyalties completely transferred over to this new nation? After the sworn-in ceremony, I did not feel any different than before, does this mean that I have failed in this transformative process?

Later, I recognized that the best way to feel at ease in this nation is to engage with its nation- and community-building process. By that I am suggesting that I will go out and vote and encourage others to engage in the political process as well, and volunteer my time and efforts and engage with the community around me. To appreciate on a daily basis what we do in this nation and to cherish the social, political, and cultural institutions that define the United States. But I above, I will continue to value and uphold the bonds that unites Americans together and to encourage others to do the same, making us stronger than ever before. A nation at its core is a community and it is the duty of each member of this community to develop a strong bond with one another, so that together we may progress into the future.

Labor market in Japan: Is female participation the key to economic recovery?

Posted on by fqzhang

I came across this article quite recently on NPR news, “Is ‘Womenomics’ The Answer To Japan’s Economic Woes?” http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/12/03/368143686/is-womenomics-the-answer-to-japans-economic-woes . The author posed the question of whether or not Japan’s recent policy, dubbed “Abenomics”, is going to pull the nation out of economic stagnation. One key component of this economic revitalization is to introduce women into the workplace and to provide a more talented pool of workers for the economy to draw upon. However, his policies have been controversial as well, since he is accused of helping only a small group of women, and not doing enough to help advance the careers of others. The debate, therefore, revolves around what is the economic role for women in a society such as that of Japan’s?

It is no secret that the Japanese economy is in a sluggish condition, with many structural problems present. Personally, I believe in the importance of sustained economic growth to bring benefits to society, and if having greater participation can contribute to the economic development, then I believe it is the duty of a government to help women assimilate into the workforce. This will no doubt face considerable resistance from many in a traditional society such as that of Japan, where women in the workplace, especially in jobs like manufacturing, is still something rarity, and women are expected to become the child-bearers and homemakers in society. But we must not forget the fact that the Japanese workforce is shrinking due to population decline, and immigrations are still being severely restricted in the nation. Therefore, it is imperative for Japan to increase the size of its labor force by including more women than before in order to save many of the industries in the country from being relocated elsewhere.

This sort of change requires a fundamental shift in the way a society views how their economy should be organized. If we look back at the history of Japan, we see that Japanese society reorganized itself from a feudal agricultural nation into an industrial one in the late 19th century; and post-World War Two, when Japan orientated itself to become an exporting nation, with an emphasis on electronics. These sort of changes did not happen overnight and had to overcome challenges within society, the landowners and domestic industrialists respectively. Also in each case, the government, in the form of a centralized bureaucracy and the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), helped to propel the nation into greater economic advancements.

In today’s Japan, societal views of women have not changed in decades, even though the economic fortune of Japan have shifted considerably. In response to this new crisis in the labor market, I believe that the government has the opportunity to once again take a proactive role in society, and to encourage economic development by making drastic changes in the social framework. By providing subsidies to industries that hire women, by giving better childcare and social benefits, by opening technical training programs for women, the Japanese government can introduce more women into the workforce. Japan has done it before, spear-heading changes in its economy and transformed itself into the 3rd largest economy in the world today. I believe that with the right amount of political will to foster these social changes, Japan can once again become an engine of global economic growth.

The changing social climate of UC Berkeley: activists or those who need to be activated?

Posted on by fqzhang

Recently, in Berkeley, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement that took place during the 1960s, with campus-wide events hosted by a variety of clubs and organizations. It happens that while walking with a friend out on Sproul Plaza (the center of UC Berkeley’s political and social life, where much picketing and demonstration happens), I asked her if she is doing anything in relation to this event. I wasn’t expecting an affirmative response, for most people don’t really care too much; but to my astonishment, she does not even know what Free Speech Movement was! After talking with her further, I realized that she does not know anything about the history of the University, and especially the activism of the early 60s and the Vietnam era, or even Berkeley’s reputation as one of the most liberal colleges in the US. However, soon I remembered that she is an international student who did not care to do the research on the social aspects of this university and instead applied simply for the university’s reputation as a center of research.

Later, after I came back into my room, I began to ponder about how Berkeley has changed since the 60s. The students are simply no longer the same. Traditionally, those students who are most actively have come from the American middle or lower-middle class, those who have received an excellent education, but also who has an extensive amount of interactions with the socially disadvantaged. The hippies and the liberal atheistic type that abounded during that time no longer exists. (Well, not if you count the large homeless population in the city of Berkeley, many of whom holds liberal views. The student population as a whole do not regard them as a source of enlightenment, but rather as a nuisance with ideas of a bygone era.)

The changing demographic of Berkeley has changed what it means for Berkeley as a left-leaning or liberal university. Increasingly, the student composition of UC Berkeley have come from outside the state and outside the country. Based on the 2014 admission statistics, we see that around 25% are out-of-state students and 10% are international. The differing academic acceptance rates are partially political in nature: since traditionally the UC system depends upon state funding to continue its operations, and therefore accepting an overwhelming amount of in-state students; but now with the continual low amount of state funding, the school depends on out of state tuition fees to cover some of its expenses.  These changes have profoundly changed the view Berkeley students viewed themselves and the world. The background of these students are often upper middle class or even from the very top echelons of their respective countries. This resulted in them being less interested in social issues and more interested in their education or their enjoyment of college, in more extreme cases, they are treating the college experience almost as a 4-year vacation. As a Berkeley student, I note with interest the difference between those who are born in the state of California and those who are from other parts of the US or around the world, who in general are wealthier: students from affluent overseas families would often prominently display their Coach bags or Prada shoes, while those of us of middle or lower class background in California walks around in our simple clothing, with nothing flashy to show.

This changing demographics are partly to blame for an increasing amount of apathy in political and social affairs. Here in UC Berkeley, many of students (from a different location or background) do not know of anything important that’s going on around them, and display no interests whatsoever in local or community issues. On national issues, their awareness is just as low. This results in an interesting situation on campus, where the professors are often far more liberal – being from a different era – and more caring about issues around them than the students themselves, despite the great age differences.

This is a disturbing trend for many reasons. Firstly, college is not simply a place where we learn in a classroom, despite the importance of it. Most of us learn through interactions with others and caring about the community is the first step in learning what it means to be a member of it. Caring about issues at hand – whether it is immigration reform or the Keystone pipeline – should still interest us. And interests frequently lead to social change. Moreover, Berkeley is a place where we prepare future leaders who have ideas on how they want to change the world. How can we accomplish this without have an activist student body? Student activism is not limited to picketing and sit-ins, but also in talking with those in a position of authority, writing about issues they care about, make their voices heard on social media and so much more. Every student should have an activist part within them, and college is the best time to discover themselves and act on their activism.

What should we do to change this? By no means do I suggest that Berkeley stop accepting students from other locations or those above a certain level of income; the diversity is what made us who we are, and we should keep it that way. But I do think that we should encourage activism among the students by offering more selections of classes or programs whereby we can learn about contemporary issues and provide forums in which students can explore more. Perhaps, even in the college admission processes, we can weigh more portions on the activism aspects and look for students who demonstrated potential for activist changes. This way, we can ensure that our University continues to be not only the top school for education, but also continue as a place of student activism.