Q&A with Professor John Kopper on Recent Develops on the Situation in Ukraine

On April 24th, I sat down with Professor John Kopper, chair of the Russian department at Dartmouth College to discuss recent developments regarding the situation in Ukraine, especially heightened tensions between the United States and Russia.

JS: The United States has started stationing soldiers in Poland for military exercises. Today 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Poland and they will be joined by another 450 troops in the next few days. There will also be further military exercises run by the U.S. in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. What does this deployment mean for the situation in Ukraine? Why do you think the U.S. deployed soldiers now?

JK: I think we’re mainly reassuring those countries, and Poland, that being in NATO means something. They’re nervous. Three of them are former republics and they see Putin invading a republic and occupying it. Annexing part of it. Poland was behind the Iron Curtain. Although they don’t share a border with Russia, actually. None of the Eastern European countries do now. The borders are with Belarus and Ukraine. They still fear invasion because, historically, they’re enemies.

JS: Do you think the U.S. is escalating the situation?

JK: No. Not at all. Putin’s escalating this situation. This probably wouldn’t exist without one man. Maybe the whole thing. It’s a chess game for sure, and both sides are trying to get away with something with an escalation that their allies and their populations accept without invoking a destructive situation, which would be war.

JS: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed the U.S. was “running the show” in Kiev. What did he mean, or is that part of Russia’s information strategy?

JK: It’s definitely spin and he’s appealing to the xenophobic streak in the Russian population right now. They don’t want people meddling in what Putin’s trying them is not just their backyard but their property. I think we virtually have no influence right now on Ukrainian politics.

JS: The U.S. is reportedly considering appointing a new ambassador to Russia. Will this help improve the situation?

JK: No. That’s the short answer. The ambassador doesn’t make policy. What you hope for is an ambassador who’s well enough informed that it’s simply another good voice reporting on what’s going on in Russia and who has the contacts within Russia to possibly make a small difference.

JS: A recent New York Times article claims Russia is demonstrating a new military prowess - one combining special ops troops, cyber-warfare and a mass information campaign. This strategy is much more complex that its military strategy used in Chechnya at the turn of the century. What do you think?

JK: I think it’s technically true. In terms of improving the military, Putin is another example of Russian rulers who model themselves on Peter the Great. It’s the latest westernizing - he’s westerning the military and he’s doing a very good job. He’s sharp enough to know the Western models are the most successful. So he is trying to be like us. On the other hand, the vast majority of people in the Russian army are not going through special ops training. Their general level of training is far below American forces or those of any western European country. Most are conscripts. They live in terrible conditions, they’re demoralized, and looking at the size of the Russian army now doesn’t tell the whole story. A sector of it is increasingly well-trained like its western counterparts.

JS: Do you think the situation will escalate beyond military exercises and ignite into an actual war?

JK: I think it could. I can see a non-nuclear war breaking out in small areas, one after another. I don’t see a major conflagration. I guess I find myself looking at Putin following too close in Hitler’s footsteps in the late 1930s, wanting land, basing it on ethnic claims and knowing that his popularity is largely contingent on that. The Russian economy isn’t doing too well at the moment. I think the difference is countries gave Hitler things because they thought if they gave him one more little piece, that would be enough. We have the example of Hitler so countries aren’t thinking like that now. Today it’s more a case of ‘what can we realistically do to stop Putin?’ and that’s a huge difference.

JS: If you do think that a conflict is possible, what do you think the likelihood of that be? What would need to happen for that to occur?

JK: I think Russia going into NATO countries would certainly force the issue. I don’t know how long NATO could get away with doing nothing without essentially doing nothing. It was brought into existence to fight the Soviet Union. It wasn’t dissolved when the Soviet Union dissolved, so if it has a reason to exist now, it would be to protect Europe from Russia. And if it doesn’t, everyone will assume that means it can’t.​

Part 8 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you foresee Ukraine splitting into smaller countries as a result of this crisis?

VS: I don’t think it would split. The areas, even though we might see a majority of Russians or a majority of Ukrainians, it’s mixed. They’re not monolithic. They’re so many ties between people there. There are no neat lines that you could draw that could split. There are differences, but in any country, there are some differences. Cultural, ethnic, linguistic, ideological, but they’re not the reasons to split up. There are all these negotiations with different interests. I don’t see how Ukraine could be split up. As I said, the people who participated in the protests were of all ethnicities. And once again, for Putin, that may be one of his inspirations. For him, it works to think of Ukraine as being an artificial construct that can break along ethnic and cultural lines. That’s what he hopes to do. That demonstrates his deep-seated notion of thinking Ukraine is not really a state. By exercising military force and instigating disturbances in eastern areas, that obscures the picture. If he continues doing that, and if he is allowed to continue with it, then yes, partition would be possible, but it would not be because of Ukraine made the choice. It would be because Putin decided it. Without him in Ukraine, I don’t think Ukraine would split. There are no clear lines that it could follow.

JS: Do you think Russia will retaliate against U.S. citizens living within Russian territories, such as deporting them or restricting their visas?

VS: Once again, if he continues and doesn’t to listen to scenarios and causes Russia to enter some kind of Cold War, then he might. He might put restrictions on peoples’ travel and whether they can enter or exit Russia. If this becomes ideological warfare, it becomes quite possible that he might restrict visas. He’s already targeting certain journalists. As you might know, there were some cases where journalists weren’t allowed to enter. So something like this can easily happen. The first thing he might do is he might limit Russians’ ability to enter and exit, which is now a complete norm. But if he starts building an iron curtain again, then yes, absolutely. He could do that and make it difficult for Americans.

Part 7 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: I understood your stance regarding economic and diplomatic responses, but I just want to clarify that when it comes to the military, you think the United States should refrain.

VS: I honestly don’t even know. It’s terrifying to think about it because warfare in the modern world, it’s apocalyptic. It’s impossible. It’s going to be either some kind of cold war or isolation of Russia, which I think that’s where the steps the U.S. is making leads to with the talk of economic sanctions, stopping military alliances and statements from NATO. 

So there’s either going to be some kind of cold war, which might lead to some kind of lack of communication between countries and diplomatic warfare similar to the scenarios we saw during the Cold War. Because if it gets to military, I honestly don’t know how to picture that since Putin has nuclear weapons and he knows that. 

That’s of course why everyone is concerned. It seems like the world is suspended watching and not really knowing what to do because what would you do. Putin has that button. He’s got one hand on the gas and oil which is his control over Europe and he’s got his other hand on the button and that is what gives him the idea that he can go and bully small nations around and the world is stunned and doesn’t know what to do because how can you risk starting the third World War?

JS: Kind of gives the impression that this situation might likely play out like 2008 when the United States didn’t involve itself militarily in the Russo-Georgia war. 

VS: The U.S. did not, because in some way, before the Russo-Georgian war began, Russia was able to use a pretext. It was not a sufficient pretext to engage in war but at least Russia had a pretext of the Georgian government ordering its military to mobilize. 

There is nothing like this in Ukraine. It’s clearly a manufactured pretense, that to make it as anything else, just shows a complete misunderstanding of events or dishonesty. There was not a single case documented against a Russian, and this is in the age of the Internet when information spreads quickly. Everything is being manufactured through Putin’s channels. If you look at Russian television, and he controls federal channels and radio stations and newspapers, they have to make up everything. 

There was no violence against ethnic Russians in the Crimea. There are no refugees from Crimea. It’s just not happening. It’s completely manufactured. If this is not the case for a strong international intervention, then I don’t know what is. What else does dictator have to do to provoke an outrage. 

If the world waits this out and tries to placate or appease him, to find excuses, they can't because there is no excuse at all. During the protests, perhaps, the Ukrainians expected more support but the West was cautious because they didn’t know who was the driving force, who was coming to power, would he be a legitimate president to negotiate with. 

But here, I don’t see how it’s possible to frame it any other way than a complete violation of one country’s sovereignty, and that’s a cornerstone of international law. If this is allowed to happen, then it’s the whole concept of international law will have to be redefined – how we live with each other, and negotiate, and make agreements. I think it’s a very clear case of a violation and a very clear response should be forthcoming or we’ll be in a different world. It’s hard to say what kind of world it’s going to be but it will be different.

Part 6 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: The Turkish government granted permission to the U.S. for a U.S. warship to cross into the Black Sea. Building on the idea that, let’s assume for a second, the crisis turns hot and shots are fired, do you think the conflict will remain between Ukraine and Russia just as the 2008 Russo-Georgian War stayed between Russia and Georgia, or do you think the United States might intervene? Or do you think the European Union will enter the conflict at the risk of losing its supply of gas from Russia?

VS: For Ukrainians, it’s a frustrating situation because they sense the reluctance of the European Union to give a more definite response. Such scenarios are terrifying to consider. This crisis is a real crisis, who knows what’s going to happen. No one wants war to happen. It’s terrifying to think Russians and Ukrainians, two very closely related people, would begin killing each other. This conflict will redefine lines, maybe even ethnically. Right now, it’s not an ethnic conflict but it will be if Russians are perceived as occupants and killers in an actual war. 

As far as U.S. interference goes, on the one hand I think there should be a very clear and unambiguous response to what Russia is doing, and perhaps all options besides military should be explored, and they should be explored very carefully. There should not be any hesitation as to what to do. I think the west kind of hesitated during the protests in Kiev. It wasn’t clear who was in charge of the protests. There were fears that it might be some right-wing group leading the protests. 

So Ukrainians don’t perceive much support besides voiced concern about violence from the west. What has been achieved is due to the Ukrainians themselves. They got rid of their corrupt criminal government themselves trying to move towards the west. The west has to meet them halfway. The west has to support them because there are unequal forces. Tiny little Ukraine and the huge country of Russia with all its military power. 

Moreover, Ukraine actually signed the agreement called the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and it was between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Great Britain where Ukraine agreed to get rid of all nuclear weapons and become nuclear-free in exchange for protection of its integrity and sovereignty. So the United States, Great Britain and Russia signed that agreement and now Russia has violated it among other international laws. 

For western countries not to interfere, it would mean that a country like Russia could break international law and avoid retaliation, and that no protection would be afforded for the country that trusted in the agreement, which could change the world’s understand of international law and how it works. What’s allowed and what’s not allowed. Other nations are going to look at this and think, “It doesn’t work. We need to have our own weapons. Because in the situation when we need help, when it’s clear to everyone, it’s a very arrogant violation of law but other countries will just say, ‘we are concerned’ or they’ll do little or nothing else.” So some kind of intervention could happen.

Part 5 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Do you think the people of the Crimea want to be annexed or remain under Russia’s sphere of influence?

VS: That’s tricky. Crimea is the population of Ukraine, I think it’s the only region of Ukraine, where the majority of the population is ethnically Russian. It is pro-Russia. Even though there is 24 percent Ukrainians and originally the land belongs not to Russians and not to Ukrainians but Crimean Tartars who were forcefully deported from Crimea in 1944 by Stalin, and then prohibited from returning to Crimea. 

So now Crimean Tartars, who represent, I think, 12 percent of the area’s population, claim the land as an ethnic group and they are very anti-Russian. They have already requested the Turkish Government to interfere on their behalf. It’s somewhat unique in terms of its history, it has a complex historical background and cultural history, and its ethnic majority is Russian. 

That’s what Putin is using as a pretext, to defend the rights of the ethnic Russians, but I think his presence obscures the picture. It’s very difficult to really understand what the people of Crimea want with Russian troops being right there. And so they’ve created this temporary government of Crimea, but it was already formed with the Russian presence there. It doesn’t give a clear picture of what’s happening. 

In order to understand what the people of Crimea would want, and these are things the newly formed Ukrainian government should carefully listen to, and to understand the complexities of this region, that it is different, somewhat, to a degree from other areas, but with Russian troops there, with the pressure, with the blocked airways and blocked military bases, with soldiers in unidentified uniforms in administrative buildings, who claim that Crimea wants to be Russian, it’s not a true picture. 

In order to understand what Crimea wants, Russia has to get out of there. It’s actually two different questions. One question of Crimea’s complexity which has to be taken into account but by Ukraine. It’s a Ukrainian matter and it’s something the Ukrainian government has to decide what to do about it. What Russia is doing, it is violating international law and violating the sovereignty and integrity of another country. It has no business being there and interfering in the question of what Crimean people want. It’s between the Crimean people and the Ukrainian government. 

And then being there makes it immediately inadequate, whatever picture they’re seeing. From what I know there are monitors and representatives from international organizations coming into Crimea to try to understand what is happening because there is no way to get an understanding at all. 

The Ukrainian military has actually shown remarkable strength by not giving in to the provocation. Because it seems Putin is looking at everything for a pretext. Russia is executing full-force psychological attack there and there are many reports from journalist saying Russia is not firing shots but is not allowing the military to function. Russia is blocking the peninsula. It’s outrageous. Russia is supposed to leave and then talks can commence about Crimean complexity, about ethnic make-up, about linguistic make-up and cultural differences, but not with Russian troops there.

Part 4 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Following up on Crimea, I understand the largest, or the most important part, is the naval bases in the Crimea, such as at Sevastopol. Do you think by the end of this crisis, Russia will resort to extreme measures, such as igniting a war in Ukraine with other parties like Ukraine, the European Union or the United States, in order to annex the Crimea? Russia used to have control of the Crimea, up until Khrushchev handed the Crimea to Ukraine. Do you think Putin will make a power play to retake the Crimea from Ukraine?

VS: I think that’s what he’s trying to do. That is what he’s trying to do right now. And I think the world is stunned in a way by what he is doing, and I think that’s why it’s so hard at this point to figure out what will happen. I think that everyone is very concerned, troubled and shocked by what he is doing. I think his intention is clear, although I’m not sure about the form of his specific vision, but moving military troops into the territory of an independent sovereign country is aggressive. 

He has a pretext. He tried to make his case in front of the safety council of the United Nations that he’s protecting the Russian population of Ukraine and that he wants to take the area under control, that Yanukovych is the legitimate president and that Yanukovych asked him to intervene. His intention is very clear. 

He’s not firing any shots yet, but he’s moved his military. He’s blocked military bases. He’s blocked airways. What’s happening is disturbing on so many levels. There are constant reports that say no one really knows. He does want to partition, maybe annex, the Crimea. 

He might even want to create disturbances in other areas of Ukraine like Donetsk, and there are lots of reports about what is happening in eastern Ukraine, saying that pro-Russian activists are suddenly becoming more powerful and active and that they were quiet and mostly talking during the protests but now they feel supported and encouraged. Putin’s ambition may go ever farther but what would happen depends to a great degree on how the world responds.

Part 3 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: Is there a strong resentment from Ukrainians towards Russians? Do you think Ukrainians perceive Russia’s actions as trying to reassert its former dominance from when it was the Soviet Union?

VS: I would say yes to your second question, but I think it is important, and I believe speaking in English makes it harder to differentiate, but when you’re asking Ukrainians versus Russians, it seems the conflict is framed in ethnic, linguistic or cultural terms, as if it’s ethnic Russians against ethnic Ukrainians, but it’s not what the conflict is about, and in Russian, you can say Russian meaning ‘related to the state’ by saying rossiskii or you can say russkii meaning the ethnic group and that would be something different. And the Ukrainian protest is anti-rossiskii, anti-Russia as a state. It’s not against ethnic Russians.

I think it’s important to see this difference, and even though there’s an overlap between the two, and yes, large support from Yanukovych comes from ethnic Russians in the east and opposition from ethnic Ukrainians in the west, but the origins of the protest itself isn’t against ethnic Russians, it’s against Putin’s regime. 

It’s against Russia as a state. It’s against Russia’s attempt, as you said, to assert control over Ukraine, to view Ukraine within its sphere of influence as a satellite state that is now trying to pull away. That’s where the protest comes in – to oppose that political direction of Russia rather than ethnic Russians. 

And it’s framing the conflict in ethnic terms that is precisely what Putin is trying to do when he claims that an intervention in the Crimea is to protect ethnic Russians. It works for him to see this conflict as a conflict between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians, but it is not. 

And now Maidon has declared independence. Now Maidon is a word for independence. It is a word that is used to indicate a protest. Maidon means ‘square’ in Ukrainian but now it’s a common word because maidons were opened everywhere. They are spaces where people can protest the government.

JS: Similar to how people might use “Waterloo” to indicate a person’s downfall?

VS: Exactly. On Facebook, the page that was providing all the updates is called EuroMaidon, or European Maidon, and an opposing movement was called anti-maidon. Or when people used cars or transportation in various ways to help set up the protest where called auto-maidon. Maidons have had people of all ethnic groups – Russians, Ukrainians, Russian speakers and more. It’s not an ethnic conflict and I think that’s crucial to understand. 

And to your second question, yes, absolutely. I think that’s what Putin’s government is trying to do. It’s a real threat to Russia’s geopolitical standing. It doesn’t want Ukraine to pull away from its sphere of influence and I would say yeah, he’s trying to exert his influence with what he has. And I guess he didn’t expect the protest to go that far and to be that powerful, and for people to really stand for what they were fighting for and not to leave the streets for months. 

It’s one of the most long-lasting protests in European history. They’ve been there since November. Right through the winter, sub-zero temperatures, police attacks and sniper attacks at the end. I think Putin did not expect that was going to happen. He can’t stand Ukraine going away.

Part 2 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

JS: To clarify, does Yanukovych and his government have a history of being pro-Russian or was his switch of association agreements out of the blue?

VS: Yes, he comes from the Eastern part of the Ukraine. His main support comes from the South and East. He actually comes from the same town as me, the city of Donetsk. The other day I was listening to Vermont Public Radio and it was reporting on Donetsk, which is Yanukovych’s home town and it happens to be my home town. It was the first time since I moved here that my city was on the news. They said “Donetsk,” and I said, “Oh wow. Donetsk.” 

JS: Did you ever meet him personally in Donetsk?

VS: No, no. We moved in different circles. But it is his base of support and he was elected as President. There was some discussion as to how fair the election was but there was an agreement that he did win, that he does have the support of Ukraine. But there was the hope that even though he represents Russian speakers or Russians or the Southeast of Ukraine, he would listen to other voices and he would move the country in the right direction. But his rejection to sign the agreement and to enter negotiations with Putin clearly indicated that he was not going to do that. Then people stopped giving him credit or expecting something different from him. 

JS: So all the issues today you think are more about removing Yanukovych from power than it is about the agreement with Russia?

VS: Yes, it’s about removing Yanukovych. And now Russia insists that Yanukovych is the legitimate president. It’s still about moving away from Russia but less about the agreement or documents that need to be signed.

Part 1 - Q&A with Professor of Russian Victoria Somoff

History will always remember February 18, 2014 as the day the Ukrainian people rose up and ousted President Viktor Yanukovych after the president decided to forcefully end months of protests. Protestors at the time were railing against Yanukovych's decision to break away from an association agreement with the European Union in favor of the Russian Federation. 

After the initial altercation between protestors and riot police left at least 82 dead and over 1,100 injured, protestors began rioting and pushing for Yanukovych's ousting. Then on February 22, the Ukrainian Parliament impeached Yanukovych, forcing the disgraced president to flee Kiev for eastern Ukraine where he enjoyed the most political support.

Over the next few weeks, tensions have since increased, putting Russia and the United States at odds as Russian troops are deployed in parts of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. The situation is still in development, but it's getting progressively worse.

Over the next several days, I will be posting the transcript of my discussion on March 5 with Professor Victoria Somoff about the crisis. Professor Somoff is a native Ukrainian before she migrated to the United States, and she is a professor of Russian literature and culture at Dartmouth.

JS: Why do you think the Ukrainian Crisis ignited now as opposed to earlier when Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych signed the deal with Russia?

VS: This started November after a very specific particular event, namely after Yanukovych, the now-ousted President of Ukraine, rejected an association agreement with the European Union. A lot of preparation went into that agreement for his signature, and he attended the summit in Vilnius and there was an expectation that he would sign. 

At the last moment, he rejected that proposal. He did not sign the agreement. It wasn’t just a random accident. It indicated very clearly his choice for Ukraine’s future. Not only did he not sign the agreement, he immediately started negotiations with Russia. Russia promised him home investments in the Ukrainian economy, Russia promised to lower gas prices. It was a clear choice on the part of Yanukovych and his Government where Ukraine was going to go. With Russia, with Putin’s regime, and not with Europe. This choice people opposed and that’s when people took to the streets protesting this specific decision and demanding the renewal of negotiations with Russia.

That’s how it all started. And Yanukovych’s response was exceptionally inadequate. He was ignoring the protests for a while. It seemed like he was trying to wait them out, and then at a certain point, he started using the riot police and brutally and violently tried to clear the protesters from the streets of Kiev, which just increased and intensified the protests. More people came out and now, at that point, it became less about the agreement, less about the demands about to sign a particular agreement and more about the Ukrainian peoples’ demands to remove Yanukovych and his regime from power for being an inadequate, incapable government, having new elections, a return to the Constitution of 2004 and other issues that were larger than the association agreement. The agreement has much more of a symbolic significance.

The Impact of Globalization on American and Russian Culture

Globalization has been a part of the world for many centuries, going as far back as the spread of Ancient Greek culture during the Hellenistic period, or the birth of the Silk Road, the famous trade route connecting China with the Mediterranean Sea. To use its most general definition, globalization is the process of connecting different parts of the world. However, globalization is more commonly used in reference to the growth of an integrated global economy characterized by free trade, the free flow of capital and the utilization of cheaper foreign labor markets to drive down production costs. The United States is the country most often associated with globalization, with good reason, which sometimes results in globalization being associated with “Americanization.” This phenomenon is typified by the presence of American brands, such as McDonalds, Burger King and, especially, Coca-Cola.

But it is incorrect to consider globalization as a distinctly American process. Globalization occurs whenever distinct different parts of the world connect with one another via the trade of information or resources, such as between England and India in the late 19th century. It is the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the transmission of commodities and ideas, becomes standardized around the world. Because of the technology of the time, the rise of Americanization was simply more rapid than previous instances of globalization, like England’s colonial presence in India or the Silk Road. Due to near-instantaneous communication and improved transportation technologies and services, and other factors such as mass migration and the movement of human resources, economic activity has rapidly expanded beyond the borders of countries to form today’s global market as we know it.

The economic benefits of globalization are obvious, of which America and China provide the best examples. Leading up to World War II, America was primarily an isolationist country with little involvement on the world stage except a two-year appearance in World War I from 1917-1918 and a quasi-imperialistic frame of mind between 1898 and 1904. The government even had a series of Neutrality Acts preventing the United States from taking part in foreign affairs, including refraining from joining the ill-fated League of Nations. But then World War II occurred and most of the world found itself beaten into a bloody pulp. The European powers of Germany, England and France had been badly devastated, while Japan and China were all but decimated, leaving just the United States and the Soviet Union as the primary world powers.

The Soviet Union, with its system of economic centralization under Communist rule, was ill equipped to expand and globalize against the United States and eventually collapsed, while the United States continues to function alive and well. The nature of globalization requires free trade and economic maneuverability, which a centralized economy restricts. As such, few Russian brands became as prominent as American brands. Because of its capitalistic economy, the United States expanded rapidly, developing into a global economy that formed the economic backbone for most of the world until recently. Now China has started to compete with the United States for economic superiority.

However, such rapid economic expansion has its costs. Critics of globalization claim it is detrimental to the social and natural sustainability of a region in the long-term, and question the benefits of continuous economic expansion. They also criticize the social structural inequality caused by globalization, and the colonial, imperialistic or hegemonic ethnocentrism, cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation that seemingly characterize globalization. Pointing to the rise of the United States post-World War II or the colonial dominance of European nations over Africa and Asia in the 1800s, critics highlight these historical examples of how countries with influence and money can essentially rule over less fortunate countries and dictate the course of action.

Based on my personal experiences growing up as an American citizen, the critics’ arguments to a point seem valid. Growing up in the 1990s and 2000s, I saw the impact of globalization was evident everywhere. My family lived in Europe for four years, visiting most European countries on the continent as far east as Poland, and the prevalence of American products like Burger King, Coca-Cola and Levis jeans was astounding. As a small child, I felt like America was everywhere and that globalization had broken down national borders, allowing everyone access to the same products and enjoy the American “way of life.” To a certain degree, it felt like I had never left the United States.

Globalization plays to the American ideals of individualism and competition. Americans, when they’re financially and socially successful, believe capitalism is the world’s greatest philosophy, and that hard work and determination will be enough to raise a person from poverty to affluence. And globalization has been great in breaking down borders, especially when it comes to bringing in foreigners to America.

As a student in elementary school, I constantly heard how American culture was a so-called “melting pot,” which was a metaphor for a diverse society becoming more harmonized over time, and that in turn is a soft way of saying cultural assimilation. The melting pot theorists claimed that many different races and cultures in the United States, from Hispanic or Black to Irish or Catholic, were mixing together to form a unique society. But on September 11, 2001, everything changed. The term melting pot disappeared from my life and teachers and other adults emphasized the American Way of Life, which played to a national ethos of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American way required citizens to be individualistic, dynamic and pragmatic, all of which are qualities that drive globalization. Americans believe in progress, self-improvement and education, which combined comprised the American ideal. And it’s worked well for the most part. The United States has been a dominant country since the end of World War II and currently shows no signs of stopping. In the past 70 years, the USSR, Japan and now China have risen and fallen while the United States remains consistently strong, and Americans attribute it to globalization and the dominance of American products in the economy.

But globalization has a dark side. Many Americans become insensitive to other cultures, assuming that America’s role in the world is because of the American way. Americans may start mocking and degrading other cultures, believing American culture to be dominant in every aspect. It causes Americans to become blind to their own differences, and prevents them from realizing that there is no true American culture except striving for financial success.

Globalization has led to the erosion of families and family relationships, something I have personally experienced. Globalization and the American Way encourage families to break up if sons and daughters want to succeed in life. Nowadays, young adults must be willing to regularly relocate if they want to advance in their careers. As a result, it’s no longer strange to hear how families are spread across the entire country, relying on the ease of transportation and communication to maintain familial bonds. But if families don’t avail themselves of Skype, e-mail and air travel, those bonds disintegrate.

Prior to globalization, American culture was more homogenous and families lived in the same house for generations, just as Russians once did as well.

Defined by its communal nature, Russian culture is at risk of following in the footsteps of American culture. With ease of travel and communication, Russian families will face the same temptations to break apart as American families, especially if relocating improves job prospects and earnings.

Globalization causes people to feel compelled to strive for financial success. Americans are raised on the success ethic of work hard, get ahead and be successful in whatever you do, sometimes perceived as equality of opportunity. However, equality of opportunity does not guarantee success or equal results and, according to Nina Khrushcheva, equality of outcomes is more important than financial success for Russians.[1] Russians can be just as productive workers as Americans, but Russians prefer the labor to be completed for personal reasons instead of financial. This mental paradigm is where globalization will reconfigure Russian culture.

This inherent need for an equality of outcomes makes it difficult for Russians to comfortably practice capitalism because true capitalism will always result in inequality. Historically, Russia has frowned upon those who disproportionately succeed, such as resentment towards the kulaks, who were private farmers. Even today, Russia is slowly transitioning from what it’s always known, a centralized economy dictated by the government, to a more capitalist economy where more opportunities are easily had. Globalization is forcing Russia to chart its own path down roads it has never traveled before.

However, globalization’s impacts have been relatively limited given how large Russia is. Right now, the areas most affected are the major cities, such as St. Petersburg, Moscow and Ekaterinburg, while the rural villages lag far behind. But such a situation has always been the case. The villages contain a very different culture compared to the cities, and this is most evident when it comes to politics. Opposition politicians like Alexei Navalny possess limited appeal outside the major cities because of this cultural divide. The divide is even more evident when seen in person. When I was in St. Petersburg last summer, I witnessed firsthand the stark contrast when I visited a few of the villages on the city’s outskirts. Not only do village folk act much differently than city folk, but there’s very little in the way of modern conveniences. When I visited Ropsha, a small town on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, I saw a Пятерочка grocery store, a Russian-version of an American CVS convenience store, and it seemed completely out of place against the backdrop of Ropsha.

And yet, although globalization will continue to widen the cultural gap between cities and villages, it has opened up conversation between people. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, there are numerous foreign language centers and I volunteered at one of them, assisting the staff as a native English speaker. My presence can be attributed to the same tools that allow globalization to occur. When I started teaching, students were excited to have the opportunity to ask me many questions about American culture, my political beliefs and my intercultural experiences. I found myself easily engaged in conversations I hadn’t expected when I first arrived in Russia, and I spent many of my free afternoons with newly-found Russian friends, comparing and contrasting our respective cultures.

For all the negative attention globalization receives because of its erosion on a nation’s social identity, I think it’s more than balanced out by the growth of intercultural exchange. Globalization doesn’t cause cultures to die. Instead, globalization allows people to learn more about one another, and when global communication is used correctly, other cultures can receive the respect they deserve. Only when globalization is used solely xas a tool for the purpose of financial development does culture die, which just means that for multiculturalism to truly exist, and not become cultural assimilation, globalization should not be abused.

[1] Khrushcheva, Nina. Money and Wealth in Russia: Politics and Perceptions. International Affairs at The New School. April 2006. http://milanoschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Nina2_2006-06.pdf

Part 5 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: So this is very slowly chipping away at Oliphant?

BD: Exactly. 

JS: Why do you think Congress had this mentality shift?

BD: I think it reflects some of what we’re seeing on [Dartmouth] campus – a wellspring of frustration from the ground up that says the problem of sexual violence against women, and in this case the problem of sexual violence against Native women, is epidemic. The rate of sexual violence against Native women outpaces any other group in the US. Three out of four are likely to be sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. Congress heard the data loudly and clearly.

The Department of Justice documented this. This was very much on the radar. We have to applaud the success of grassroots activists and others like Amnesty International, which provided a very detailed report in 2007 and updated in 2008 to highlight just how dire this situation was. The problem in itself was extremely glaring.

What was equally glaring was the ineptitude and the lack of will on the part of state and federal prosecutors to do anything about it. Federal studies showed that the rate of declination, that is the rate that US attorneys decline to hear a case, was at the highest levels in some of these sexual assault cases.

Now in fairness to US attorneys, they may say there are good reasons why they could not go forward in several of those cases, because by the time federal investigators arrived at a crime scene, it had already been corrupted. The site had not been well preserved and the victim may have been questioned by other people. Other information may have gotten to her so it’s unclear whether or not federal prosecutors were getting accurate information that could hold up in court using a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, so they would point to reasons why those rates of declination were so high.

On the state side, it’s less clear why there was such apathy but that’s the general picture that Congress saw. The problem itself was epidemic and the response was virtually non-existent and something had to be done, so I think in response to that dual scenario, some modification using VAWA as a vehicle was seen as the best way to get this done.

I thought it was a brilliant move by senators, including Senator Leahy from Vermont, my home state, to attach this provision as a rider to VAWA so that senators voting against it would essentially have to vote against VAWA and that was a very politically dicey thing for them to do. But it was enough to hold up the passage of VAWA for an entire year. It didn’t pass in 2012 but it did pass in 2013.

So I think the national attention given to this issue, and the insistence on grassroots activists to not let this issue go by the wayside again. I think we’re seeing parallels of that right here on campus in terms of the freedom budget and so forth that students and other members of the community including faculty feeling that the problem of sexual violence on this campus has gone too long ignored and somebody has to do something about it. And that’s what Congress was facing when they reauthorized VAWA.

Part 4 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: I know that you mentioned prior to the interview that you’ve worked on this issue. For your knowledge and expertise regarding this, how long has it taken for tribes and tribal advocates to accomplish this?

BD: There’s a long history to this because when the Supreme Court ruled in 1978, in Oliphant vs. Suquamish Indian Tribe, that Indian tribes did not have the authority to prosecute non-Indians. There was an effort on the part of tribes and their advocates to get that decision overruled. They went to Congress to get this decision overruled. Didn’t happen. 

Over a decade later, in 1990, the Supreme Court had another opportunity to visit this same issue in terms of examining the scope of tribal power in a case called Duro vs. Reina. This case involved a challenge by a non-member Indian, so it’s a person who’s a Native person but it’s one who’s from a different tribe than the one who’s prosecuting him. 

He made an argument similar to Oliphant in that he was a political outsider and therefore could not participate in the political life in the tribe and therefore the tribe should have no authority over him. The Supreme Court agreed, and in that case, written by Justice Kennedy, the Court outlined why it was important for tribes to be able to prosecute their own members and no one else. 

Under the Court’s rationale, limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction to its members was justifiable on grounds that those members have consented to government of the tribe and have in least in theory the power, or right, to change the government. They can alter the form of justice being adjudicated in their court system. 

Political outsiders don’t have that opportunity. And so the Court felt that was a rational argument for construing the scope of tribal power in that way. Within about six months, tribal advocates went to Congress asking, as they had done in 1978 after Oliphant, that this case, and Oliphant, both be repealed legislatively. 

And the reason of course is to say that beyond the assault on tribal self-governance, this was creating a jurisdictional patchwork that left too many gaps where people fell through the cracks and it would be unclear as to who could prosecute in a particular case, and the prospect of offenders going unprosecuted was too great to allow this to go anywhere. 

This is where there’s a Dartmouth connection. At the time, this is the late 1990s, one of the most powerful Senators was Slade Gorton, a Dartmouth graduate, who was at one time the Attorney General for the State of Washington. He was the Attorney General during the time that Oliphant was decided. 

He was now a US Senator representing Washington and, I think at that time, chaired the Senate Finance Committee. He expressed grave reservations about any effort to repeal Oliphant. He didn’t care if Duro vs. Reina were overruled but he made it very clear no bill would go forward if Oliphant were included in its repeal. He saw Oliphant as one of the lasting major accomplishments of his administration, which was to secure that kind of limit on tribal constraints. If you wanted positive from his committee, you didn’t want to offend Gorton. And so, for political reasons, they dropped the effort to overrule Oliphant and they proceeded as a Duro overrule only. 

So there was an effort to overrule Oliphant. This goes way back, that people have been trying to get Oliphant repealed, principally for the distrust it reflects towards Indian tribes. It stands as a commentary that the brand of justice Indian tribes produce towards their members or anyone else is inferior to US Federal or State justice and tribes have been mounting this argument ever since to say that a system of tri-federalism, with State, Federal and Tribal layers of government, that this shows profound disrespect for tribal self-governance. 

It’s been a hard argument for them to make, chiefly because of the concern that they are not subject to the protections and constraints of the US Constitution, there’s still the possibility that an offender may not get the full protections he or she may deserve. 

Now Congress did write a law in 1968 called the Indian Civil Rights Act that provides most, but not all, of the protections of the Bill of Rights. The Oliphant case made note of that but they didn’t discuss if the Indian Civil Rights Act represented an appropriate compromise, that is, that was Congress’ response to say “we’re okay with individuals going to trial in front of a tribal court so long as they have the basic principles of justice respected – due process, equal protection and writ of habeas corpus, that is, if they want to challenge the legality of what happened in tribal court, they have a ready-made ticket to go to Federal court and have that challenged. 

Many folks argued, including myself, that that was a sufficient compromise. That’s the bargain in terms of individuals being subjected to tribal law but having the fallback of federal oversight in the event of an injustice. 

This legislation, the VAWA reauthorization with these provisions allowing for more expansive tribal rule, goes much further. It imposes basically all of the Constitutional protections an individual would have and some say goes even further than that because of the oversight for Federal review and that in may be in essence a bit of overkill that they’ve swung far to the other side. 

We’ll see how it plays out, but the long and short of it is that there have been efforts well into 30-plus years to overrule Oliphant and that’s what makes this legislation momentous. It finally worked but it’s a limited, a very limited overrule. Most of Oliphant is intact. It means no broad-based criminal jurisdiction with the exception of this sliver of authority that has been recognized in VAWA.

Part 3 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: You answered the next question I had on my mind [during part 2], which was regarding the comments and criticisms that this policy is considered a significant step in the direction of recognizing tribal authority, but it’s simultaneously a very small step because of the limited types of crimes that can be prosecuted. 

Taking it from there, what will be the next step? Is it going to be an expansion of the program and expanding it to allow all tribes to prosecute crimes of domestic violence? Or is it going to be depth-oriented by allowing the same three tribes to prosecute all crimes committed by a non-native, especially those involving sexual violence?

BD: It’s a good question. I don’t know what’s going to happen after this but I do know that in the legislation, the government set a two-year limit in terms of when all tribes are going to be able to petition for this enhanced prosecutorial authority, leaving it open to any tribe to petition as these three tribes have done for an early head start. 

The only thing that’s different is these three tribes took advantage of the provision for an early head start before every tribe will have that opportunity. This authority is coming for exercising this limited swath of authority for these enumerated crimes. It could very well be that this is Congress’ way of prepping the citizenry for an exercise of power that right now people don’t see coming because of Oliphant. 

Oliphant took this power away. 

It’s a very controversial decision and Congress is treading lightly to overcome it. This could be a manifestation of this reversal beginning with some low-level crimes, seeing how this experiment, if you will, in tribal self-governance in the criminal setting operates in practice with either the possibility of enhancing sentencing authorities that it could easily subsume felony crimes or removing the cap altogether and saying this authority now extends to all crimes regardless of category, restoring full Indian territorial sovereignty, and that principle says that when an offender enters the lands of a sovereign nation, he or she is subject to the law if a law is broken. 

If I go to Canada, I break a Canadian law, I can’t claim that because I’m a non-Canadian citizen, Canada has no authority over me. Right now, that’s the law in the US for Indian tribes. Individuals walk onto an Indian reservation, they’re not members of the tribe, they commit a crime, they’re untouchable. 

This is a baby step to correct that, to get us a little bit closer to full territorial sovereignty and perhaps Congress wants to see how this does play out and then we’ll revisit down the road. That’s a supposition.

Part 2 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

JS: For this pilot program, three tribes were selected for the pilot program. The Pascua Yaqui in Arizona, the Tulalip in Washington and the Umatilla in Oregon. Why do you think these three tribes were specifically chosen out of the 566 federally recognized tribes to participate in this program?

BD: The legislation under the terms of the act, tribes had the leeway to submit to the Department of Justice a fairly detailed plan showing they have the infrastructure structure ready to go to provide comparable, or in excess, protections to what the Constitution requires, and have those protections already in place for any defendant who’s going to be prosecuted under this newly authorized power.

This means the tribe has to have judges who are trained with law degrees accredited by a U.S. law school. Not all tribes require their judges to have formal law training, some of them appoint elders who command a great deal of respect. Under this legislation, tribes have to have educated judges. They also have to provide counsel. They have to provide a lawyer and that lawyer has to be law-trained as well.

In some tribes, the person who represents a litigant may be a tribal advocate, a role that connotes somebody who’s familiar with tribal procedures but may not be necessarily law-trained. You don’t need to have a law degree to be a tribal advocate in many tribes.

The mode of protections, the jury system, basically all of the protections that you would have if this were a State or a Federal prosecution would have to be in place. There are not a lot of tribes with the economic wherewithal or the incentive to redesign their judicial system so that they are a replication of the state and federal systems. Some tribes may object to having to do that on ideological grounds. They may say that their judicial systems work just fine and they don’t need to replicate the U.S. system merely because that’s the mode the U.S. adopts for its definition of justice and due process.

For other tribes, they feel it is a necessary compromise to make sure that offenders, who are so often the people who escape prosecution because the states and the Feds have a poor record in bringing charges against these individuals, they at least feel this is something they can do for their communities. They’re willing to pay the price of revising their judicial systems to meet this challenge. Whether they do that for all their cases or just these cases, remains to be seen.

In other words, if I’m the Tulalip tribe, do I overhaul my entire judicial system for these cases and do whatever we were doing prior to VAWA for all the other cases or do we do it for all the cases? I don’t know what their plans are.

I do know this that the VAWA itself only provides a sliver of authority for tribes to exercise this added authority. It only covers cases of domestic violence, stalking and cases where an offender has violated a protection order. It does not allow the tribe to prosecute a stranger, rapist, someone who is not familiar to the victim or doesn’t have prior ties to the community. So there are still many, many cases that will go unprosecuted by the tribes.

This is a baby step in terms of giving the tribes or recognizing some authority on the part of tribes to participate in bringing to justice some of these offenders. Tribes are still going to have to rely on the states or the Federal government for the vast majority of sexual offenses. These are also fairly low-level crimes for the most part. You’ll see these prosecuted as misdemeanors and the felonies are going to be left for the state or the federal government, but there again, for many tribes, it at least represents some action against an offender for him to account for his actions.

Part 1 - Q&A with Tribal Law Professor Bruce Duthu regarding VAWA

On Mar. 7, 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 into law, which included increased legal protection for Native American women and other victims who were previously left exposed by gaps in VAWA.

Professor Bruce Duthu is an internationally recognized scholar on Native American issues, including tribal sovereignty and federal recognition of Indian tribes. The courses he has taught at Vermont Law School include Criminal Law, Comparative Law of Indigenous Peoples, Federal Indian Law, Products Liability, and Torts.

Over the next few days, I'll post the transcript of the interview by posting one question and response per day.

JS: What is significant about the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, or to be more specific, the new policy allowing Native American Tribes to prosecute non-Natives for Domestic Violence crimes that occur on Native land? 

BD: A significant reason why the legislation is so momentous is this is the first time that Congress is acknowledging that Tribes, in the exercise of their sovereign powers, can prosecute individuals who are not members of the tribe or, in fact, native people. 

The reason that’s so significant is that when we acknowledge Indian Tribes are not subject to the limitations or constraints of the U.S. Constitution, you have this scenario. You have U.S. citizens who could be facing criminal trials before tribunals, which are not subject to the full constraints of the U.S. Constitution. That is the principle reason why there was such vigorous opposition to this reauthorization. 

Moving forward, it is likely to be the principle objection that the individual defendant, the first person who’s going to be prosecuted under these provisions, is likely to make, that is, he is going to challenge Congress’ power to subject a U.S. citizen to a tribunal, in this case a tribal court, that is not subject to the full panoply of protections under the Bill of Rights. Whether he wins that argument or not will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court in terms of their view on Congressional power in Indian Affairs. That power is located in Article I of the Constitution. It says, “Congress regulates commerce with foreign nations, sovereign states and the Indian tribes.” Under that provision, the Supreme Court has granted a fairly wide berth for Congress to do pretty much what it wants to do in Indian affairs. 

There are a number of justices, notably Justice Kennedy, who has for years has expressed great reservation about whether or not Congress’ admittedly vast powers in Indian affairs go this far. So the case is momentous because of the power that it recognizes belonging to Indian tribes and the potential Constitutional claim that it raises as to whether Congress has this much authority to submit U.S. Citizens who are not members to criminal tribunals and we’ll see how the Courts respond to that.

A Portrait of the Person Behind Dartmouth's $3.7 Billion Endowment

Few jobs at Dartmouth require a person to travel regularly around the world to Singapore, India and England, but when you manage Dartmouth $3 billion endowment, well, you have to do what you have to do.

As Dartmouth’s Chief Investment Officer since Feb. 1, 2011, Pamela Peedin ’89, T ’98 feels the burden of managing Dartmouth’s large endowment but wouldn’t trade her position for anything in the world. In fact, Peedin considers her role as CIO to be her dream job.

“It’s weighty but energizing,” Peedin said. “However, I can’t imagine anything else I’d rather be doing.

Peedin credits her colleagues’ skills, passion and professionalism as why she enjoys work much more and finds it less stressful than she otherwise might.

“I am incredibly lucky to have a very talented group of colleagues in the Investment Office and advisors on the investment committee who are literally the world’s foremost investment experts,” Peedin said. “I couldn’t be in better company to help guide the endowment.

She loves pursuing an investment career with the mission of generating returns the place she has been a part of for 30 years.

“Being here is an extraordinary responsibility and privilege,” Peedin explained. “I think about it every day. Dartmouth does such an extraordinary job of educating leaders and life-long learners and I love that everything we do in the investment office has that mindset. It’s a wonderful place to be.

Peedin travels a considerable amount throughout the globe, although most of it occurs within the United States.

As a result, Peedin explains that she doesn’t have a typical workweek. Instead, she has four kinds of typical weeks, which can include traveling, seeing investors across the globe, preparing for Investment meetings, attending all the meetings of the Board of Trustees.

Most weeks are a combination of those activities. Her most typical weeks are prominently spent in the office, managing the office, having weekly internal staff meetings to discuss investments and seeing managers in and outside of the office.

According to Peedin, the Investment Office tries to consider as many what-if scenarios as possible when making investment decisions, stress-testing Dartmouth’s investment portfolio for those scenarios.

Understandably, many people, including numerous students at Dartmouth, facing such long, stressful hours would resort to coffee and caffeine to keep them awake and alert. By her own admission, Peedin does the same thing, explaining she is a triple grande dry cappuccino drinker at Starbucks.

Recently though, Peedin is trying to cut back on her caffeine intake, which she claims to be the hardest thing she’s every done. At the moment, including at our interview, Peedin drinks tea as an alternative to coffee to ensure she doesn’t have addictions in her life and can stay healthy.

Peedin and her husband Paul Rebuck, have two sons, Matt, 13, and Charlie, 11, and Peedin loves spending as much time as possible with her family.

“I love to spend time with my family, whether it’s long walks with my husband, helping my kids with homework or cheering them on in their sports games, or having a great conversation with the family around the dinner table, which we try to do at least a few nights a week – these are my biggest stress-relievers,” Peedin said.

Peedin’s family lives on the school campus where her husband works, and is able to participate in numerous campus activities including attending plays, concerts and sports events.

Peedin’s family loves to spend time outdoors, especially at the beach. Summer weekends are often spent kayaking, paddle-boarding and surfing, and the family is occasionally able to go on a vacation to a foreign country.

Peedin arrived at Dartmouth from Boston University, where she was BU’s first-ever CIO, BU’s Executive Director of Media Relations Colin Riley said.

Starting from scratch, Peedin completely revolutionized BU’s way of doing business, building BU’s Investment Office from the ground up. BU’s Board of Trustees investment committee used to meet monthly to manage BU’s holdings. Nowadays, thanks to Peedin’s efforts, the committee approves investments while day-to-day business is managed by the Investment Office.

“Transition to a college administration was interesting, especially since BU hadn’t had an investment office when I arrived,” Peedin said.

Working together with BU’s President, Peedin determined how best to initiate an internal effort at making investments and how to put that process into the governance structure that must work with the committee, senior administrators and BU’s Board of Trustees.

Peedin would need to learn the job under fire, however, as shortly following her appointment in May 2007, the financial market collapsed in what would be known as the Great Recession. During the financial crisis, Peedin’s main concern was making investors in BU understand that BU was capable of weathering the financial storm and understanding the different levers that needed to be employed.

While the stress was much higher then compared to now, Peedin still works at the same frenetic pace because of all the different initiatives Dartmouth is implementing.

BU averaged 5.8 percent on annual returns during Peedin’s five years running the Investment Office, which placed the university in the top quarter of college and universities. In 2010, the year Peedin left BU, the returns were 12.7 percent, outdoing Dartmouth’s 10 percent the same year.

Prior to BU, Peedin had been a consultant and managing director at Cambridge Associates for 10 years. Cambridge Associates is a Boston firm that advises nonprofits on their investments, and helped transition Peedin from education to finance. Peedin oversaw $2.5 billion of aggregate assets for numerous organizations, including universities, independent schools and foundations.

It was at Cambridge Associates where she saw the intersection of theory and practice in endowments.

Peedin studied psychology while an undergraduate at Dartmouth before working for Oldfields School in Maryland as a teacher and administrator and Northfield Mount Hermon School in Massachusetts as a financial aid director.

While working for different schools, Peedin found herself increasingly involved in the business side of education and, knowing she loved finance and the intersection of finance and education, she pursued an MBA at Tuck. At first, she had the intention of running a school but found herself fascinated by the challenges of investing and mastering the stock market roller coaster, which ultimately helped her discover a love of investments she didn’t know about previously.

“Investing is one of the most fascinating intellectual challenges,” Peedin said. “I think it’s an extraordinary field. Coupled with the passion I’ve always had for education, it’s a great combination."

Dartmouth Astronomy Professor Ryan Hickox Wins Sloan Foundation Grant

In the constellation Virgo, 2.5 billion light years away from Earth, a galaxy with little-understood properties generates massive amounts of energy and light. Such deep space objects intrigue astronomy professor Ryan Hickox, who recently received a $50,000 Sloan Research Fellowship to search for quasars. With the grant, Hickox will aim to better understand the supermassive black holes that lie at the center of galaxies and the evolution of the universe.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation selected Hickox as one of 126 U.S. and Canadian researchers with potential to contribute significant scholarship.

Typically young academics, Sloan fellows are nominated by their colleagues and selected based on research, creativity and potential for scientific leadership.

Hickox, an observational astrophysicist, has researched black holes since joining Dartmouth’s department of physics and astronomy in December 2011.

Quasars are among the brightest, oldest, most distant and most powerful objects in the universe.
At their center, quasars, like other galaxies, host supermassive black holes that attract gas and other material and release intense radiation.

Observing quasars gives researchers an idea of how galaxies assemble themselves over time, as it takes time for light to travel, astronomy professor John Thorstensen said.

Hickox is interested in quasars that are obstructed from view. In many cases, gas and dust block the typical ultraviolet and optical light signatures that are normally used to identify quasars.

Until recently, the observational tools to find such hidden quasars did not exist, Hickox said.

Hickox’s proposal focused on using two new telescopes, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, an infrared telescope that launched in 2009, and the Nuclear Stereoscopic Telescope Array, or NuStar, which observes high-energy X-rays.

Quasars, which possess unique signatures in the infrared spectrum, can be observed using WISE because dust does not block infrared light.

NuStar measures high energy X-rays, which are typically emitted next to black holes and can be observed through gas and dust.

Hickox collaborates with NuStar’s science team, giving him priority use of data. Unlike WISE, NuStar must be pointed at specific regions of the sky and is best used to observe areas a few times larger than the moon, Hickox said.

“If you’re interested in how things came to be and what happened to the world to make it the way it is,” Thorstensen said, “this is the kind of thing you want to know.”

Since the Sloan fellowship program’s inception in 1955, 42 fellows have earned a Nobel Prize, 16 have won the Fields Medal in mathematics, 13 have won the John Bates Clark Medal in economics and 63 have received the National Medal of Science.

Hickox is the 20th Dartmouth professor to receive a Sloan grant.

“I was excited, very honored and, frankly, a little surprised because the level of competition is really high,” Hickox said.

At Dartmouth, Hickox has taught courses on galaxies, cosmology, stars and the Milky Way, in addition to introductory astronomy classes. In summer 2012, Hickox organized a five-day international workshop about black holes.

Thorstensen said although the award is smaller than some other scientific research grants, Sloan grants provide great prestige and improved financial flexibility.

“He’s really become known among his peers as a go-to guy,” Thorstensen said.

Tyler Stoff ’15 said that Hickox was especially enthusiastic about black holes during a course last spring.

“Whenever the class focused on black holes, he was probably the most excited person in the room and had the most to say, which is great in a teacher,” Stoff said.

Hickox’s research team includes two undergraduates, four graduate students and one post-doctoral student. All seven students will be involved in the project in varying degrees, depending on their experience.

One of these students, Alexandros Zervos ’16, said in an email that he has found Hickox to be both a great teacher and colleague.

“You’ve got these amazingly interesting exotic objects with extreme gravity that have all these cool energy phenomena,” Hickox said. “To understand where they come from, you have to understand the quasars.”

This article was originally written by me and published on The Dartmouth website.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Announces Latest Affiliation with Cheshire Medical Center

Compelled by fiscal challenges in today’s health care system, some hospitals choose to partner with each other to share medical responsibilities and financial strategies, with the goal of improving the overall value of the services they provide. On Feb. 10, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Cheshire Medical Center announced that they would pursue a partnership, DHMC’s latest in a series of regional affiliations that aim to reduce costs and improve quality of care.

The partnership aims to combat challenges such as reduced government reimbursement, increased taxes on hospital earnings, declining inpatient volumes and the emergence of new payment models.

The affiliation between DHMC and Cheshire must be approved by the New Hampshire Attorney General and the director of the New Hampshire Charitable Trusts for regulatory review before it goes into effect this fall.

DHMC and Cheshire have maintained a joint operating agreement since 1998, in which Cheshire employs most of its staff through the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Keene group of multi-specialty practitioners.

Cheshire CEO Arthur Nichols said he considers the agreement a natural next step in improving the hospitals’ relationship.

In 2011 and 2012, Cheshire experienced its first operation deficits in over 30 years, prompting a desire for a closer affiliation with DHMC, which can allocate resources more effectively, said DHMC director of external relations Rick Adams. DHMC and Cheshire began discussing the agreement last September.

The proposed affiliation will allow Cheshire to remain a separate legal organization while building tighter bonds with DHMC leadership and management, coordinating their clinical and fiscal activities.

DHMC will have oversight over some of Cheshire’s financial decisions, including proposed budget strategies.

Nichols said that although it was hard for Cheshire to cede any autonomy, the decision was worth the legal and financial ability to make mutual investments, which can improve clinical strengths and intensive care services.

The hospitals will consider consolidating services and sharing some costs to reduce expenses, Nichols said.

“We have top-notch intensive care services and the Dartmouth system will have the incentive and wherewithal to do bolster them,” he said.

The agreement will enable both medical centers to pursue their shared vision of creating a sustainable system for health care, focusing on population health, delivering value-based care and adjusting to new models of payment, Adams said.

Nichols emphasized the short-term clinical advantages of the agreement for patients, adding that Cheshire would be able to alleviate DHMC’s responsibilities in caring for certain types of patients. Equipped with a Level 3 trauma center, Cheshire will handle patients with medical issues such as pneumonia or appendicitis, allowing Lebanon’s DHMC — New Hampshire’s only Level 1 trauma center — to take more high-risk patients.

According to Stanford University Medical Center, a critical patient’s chances of survival increase by 20 to 25 percent when treated at a Level 1 trauma center.

As a Level 1 trauma center, DHMC has surgeons, emergency physicians, anesthesiologists and nurses on staff 24 hours a day, along with an education program and preventive and outreach programs. As a Level 3 center, Cheshire can provide emergency resuscitation, surgery and intensive care for most patients, but lacks the full availability of specialists that DHMC has.

“[DHMC has] critical care beds but we only have so many of them,” Adams said. “And a lot of them filled with patients who really do need to come here because they’re critically injured or seriously ill.”

This new partnership is the latest in a string of affiliation that DHMC has made in the last several years. The relationships are part of a concerted effort to create a interconnected medical care system, Adams said.

In 2011, Children’s Hospital at DHMC and Children’s Hospital Boston began collaborating on pediatric care. Last fall, DHMC finalized a partnership with New London Hospital. Other recent affiliations include links with Mt. Ascutney Hospital in Windsor, Vt. and Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital in Lebanon.

“Health care in this country is moving toward integrated networks that are able to treat large populations of people,” Alice Peck Day Health Systems president and CEO Susan Mooney said in a press release. “For APD to remain a vital health care provider in that type of system, we realized that we cannot do it alone, and we owe it to our patients to find a way to participate.”

APD realized it could not maintain long-term financial viability without assistance, prompting affiliation discussions with DHMC to start last month, APD’s director of communications Dean Mudgett said. An affiliation between the two hospitals would formalize a relationship already in place.

“Northern New England is well ahead of the rest of the country in reforms,” Nichols said. “There are a lot of people still clinging to the old health care system, we create a charge, we get paid and that’s our job.”

This article was originally written by me and published on The Dartmouth website.

Dartmouth Considering Zero-Tolerance Sexual Assault Policy

Replacing Dartmouth’s current sexual misconduct policy with a zero-tolerance policy for students found responsible for sexual assault has recently gathered momentum on the Improve Dartmouth online forum. Since a Feb. 10 gathering on the Green, when students met in support after a male student threatened a female member of the Class of 2017 on Bored at Baker, discussion surrounding the policy has grown. 

Under the zero-tolerance policy students found guilty of rape would be separated from the College. The suggestion, proposed on Jan. 23 by Cally Womick ’13, is Improve Dartmouth’s highest voted submission.

Dartmouth’s current policy states that students are prohibited from engaging in any kind of sexual misconduct, which refers to any form of sex-based discrimination, harassment or nonconsensual sexual contact. Sanctions can be as severe as permanent separation from the College, though Dartmouth is not currently required to separate students who are found responsible for rape, according to the student handbook.

Expelling offenders will decrease the cases of sexual assault and increase community safety, Student Assembly president Adrian Ferrari ’14 said.

Chair of the Student Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault Will Scheiman ’14 clarified that any zero-tolerance policy would apply only to cases of rape and not for other cases of sexual misconduct.

“Once an outcome is decided and the [Committee on Standards] process finds someone responsible of rape, that person no longer has a place in the Dartmouth community, now or ever,” Scheiman said in an email.

As of Sunday night, the post had received 1,401 unique page views on Improve Dartmouth, said Alison Polton-Simon ’14, who analyzes the website’s traffic. The majority of activity related to the post occurred on Feb. 11 and Feb. 12, the days immediately following the student gathering.

As of press time, the post had 921 up-votes and 24 down-votes, for an overall feedback score of 897 on Improve Dartmouth, which is a crowd-sourcing website for ideas launched by student group Dartmouth Roots last month.

The website team provides biweekly reports to College President Phil Hanlon on site activity, including visitor demographics, popular ideas and actions resulting from the ideas, co-moderator Esteban Castano ’14 said. The group submitted its most recent biweekly report, which included the zero-tolerance policy proposal, to Hanlon last Tuesday, said co-moderator Gillian O’Connell ’15.

In July 2013, SPCSA recommended specifying in the student handbook that students found responsible for non-consensual sexual penetration be expelled.

The current COS policy states that students found responsible for engaging in actual or attempted penetration without consent or for repeated sexual misconduct could face permanent separation. Not all students found guilty of rape, however, are expelled, Scheiman said in an email.

The proposed policy would mandate expulsion in cases of rape.

The current policy’s breadth makes it unlikely that Dartmouth would feel confident enough in its legal standing to expel a student who violated the policy in any way, former head of the Center for Gender and Student Engagement professor Giavanna Munafo said.

“When somebody’s found responsible for being a predatory rapist, I think that’s the kind of incident that the person wouldn’t be allowed to return to campus,” she added.

Munafo said discussion of a zero-tolerance policy has become more prominent due to the Title IX investigation and alumni activism.

Discussion on Improve Dartmouth included a suggestion for a negotiable expulsion policy that would protect a survivor from unwanted legal proceedings that could arise if expelled students decided to pursue defamation charges.

Matthew McFarland ’16 noted that implementing a zero-tolerance policy requires there to be no doubt that the individual committed the offense.

This addresses Dartmouth’s use of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which states that a person is responsible for an offense if the Committee on Standards finds that it is more likely for the violation to have occurred than not.

Concerns regarding the preponderance of the evidence are important, Munafo said. Alternative decision-making standards and motivations of the current policy should be discussed, she said.

One problem with a zero-tolerance policy is the lack of control it grants the survivor, Scheiman said in an email, adding that he believes all survivors should have control with regard to reporting and the COS process. Yet because some survivors choose not to go through the COS process out of fear that their perpetrator will not be removed from campus, the policy may have a positive impact, he said.

Students have raised similar questions at peer institutions.

Over the past decade, Yale University has faced several investigations into its handling of sexual assault cases. In the first half of 2013, six Yale students were found guilty of non-consensual sex. None were expelled and just one was suspended, sparking national outrage.

Harvard University’s policy has also been strongly criticized, The Huffington Post and The Crimson reported in partnership. At Harvard, penalties for sexual harassment depend on the nature of the offense and range from reprimand to dismissal.

Unlike many American universities, including Dartmouth, Harvard does not have an affirmative consent policy. Affirmative consent defines sexual assault as occurring in the absence of enthusiastic verbal or physical consent. It must not be given as a result of physical coercion or threat of bodily harm.

Dartmouth’s sexual misconduct policy, in contrast, states that “one should presume that there is no consent in the absence of a clear positive indication of consent. Likewise, non-consent or lack of consent may also be communicated in a variety of ways both verbal and nonverbal.”

Harvard and Princeton are currently the only Ivy League schools without the preponderance standard.

In April, students at Swarthmore College filed a Clery Act complaint against their school, alleging that administrators did not support those who reported sexual harassment.

Swarthmore is reviewing its sexual misconduct policy and currently has an interim sexual assault and harassment policy, which places all responsibility for investigating and taking appropriate action on Swarthmore, not the complainant.

This article was originally written by me and published on The Dartmouth website.

Astronauts Combat Depression with Electronic Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Program

At 249 million miles away, astronauts living on Mars may face loneliness, depression and other forms of mental illness. To help those in remote areas, like outer space, find relief from depression, Geisel School of Medicine professors Mark Hegel and Jay Buckey and psychology professor Jay Hull developed a computer-based therapy program called the electronic problem-solving treatment, or ePST.

The program was designed for a hypothetical NASA mission to Mars, during which astronauts in need of psychological help would be handicapped by the five to 20 minute time delay on communication between Earth and Mars. Astronauts on long-duration missions with a limited group of people and minimal opportunity to interact with others outside the group are at high risk for stress, personal conflict and depression.

Hull co-authored a paper with Hegel in 2008 about how non-electronic problem-solving therapy helps depression and benefits people who generally avoid their problems. This finding applies to astronauts, who desire to be autonomous and self-directed.

Hegel and Buckey said the research led them to decide that computer-based programs would be a good approach to helping astronauts, as they allow users to complete the regimens on their own and from a distance.

The program is driven by the concepts of cognitive-behavioral therapy, which challenges people to reflect on and change their negative thoughts, resulting in increased positivity, Buckey said. It does not rely on dispensing medication, he added.

The program faces a significant challenge with user engagement, since in order for it to be successful, astronauts using it must find computers a credible form of treatment and build trust with their therapist.

In ePST, astronauts seeking treatment first complete a test to diagnose their level of depression. Based on these results, users will then interact with pre-recorded videos of Hegel answering questions and providing a treatment schedule, Hull said.

After the user completes the treatment schedule, the program will prompt the user to reflect on his or her experience.

Hegel and Buckey, with assistance from Hull, conducted a trial to evaluate the program’s feasibility, credibility and therapeutic alliance in treating depression.

Buckey presented the results of the trial at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center last Friday in a lecture called “Even Astronauts Get the Blues.”

Twenty-seven people participated in the original trial, 23 of whom completed at least four of six ePST sessions over nine weeks. Most participants completed all six, Buckey said.

Once the trial concluded, participants were asked to evaluate the program. It scored 5.27 out of seven for acceptability of self-guided treatment, 72 percent on treatment credibility and 79 percent on system usability.

The trial results, compared with Hull and Hegel’s 2008 paper, showed that ePST patients improved more rapidly than those who received traditional therapy.

The model was influenced by Dartmouth’s Interactive Media Lab, directed by Geisel professor emeritus Joe Henderson, Buckey said. Henderson believed experiential learning must be provided whenever possible, and that psychological interventions should be grounded in cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Max Fagin Th ’11, a finalist in the application process for a MarsOne program that plans to establish a human colony on Mars by 2025, said he thinks the psychological problems of space travel are exaggerated.

Boredom and lethargy represent a significant portion of astronauts’ psychological issues due to months of isolation and regimented schedules, Fagin said.

The program would be most effective during the nine-month voyage, Fagin said. Once on Mars, new discoveries and challenges will make everyday life interesting, and a lack of constant supervision due to the time delay will reduce stress.

The program will be a valuable resource in assisting astronauts with unforeseen mental issues, Fagin said.

Elaine Brown, who researches post-traumatic stress disorders, said she believes that ePST is helpful in providing astronauts with the option of therapy. Whether or not the program is effective, the mere presence of a therapeutic option can provide relief.

Brown said she does not believe that ePST will completely replace therapists because it lacks the dynamic interaction and personalized treatments that physicians can offer.

“Flexibility is important, as therapy is extremely interactive, and is tailored to the needs or pacing for each client,” Brown said.

Seeking help that is insufficient can increase stress and, in isolation, astronauts will not have access to social interaction and recreational activities available on Earth, she said.

Yet it is extremely difficult to predict all possible complications and how each may affect the mission’s members, Brown said.

“Most applicants for any mission to space are going to be demonstrably resistant or resilient to psychological impairments, including depression,” Brown said.
Brown added, however, that astronauts must have resources for their physical well-being and psychological health, Brown said.

Hegel said he believes the program can also help alleviate similar problems for people living in isolated areas on Earth, like northern New Hampshire. The program was inspired by Hegel’s desire to provide mental health services to those who lack insurance, suitable finances or mental health professionals, he said.

“It’s a lot easier to put a laptop in a primary care clinic,” Hegel explained, “than a professional in a remote area.”

This article was originally written by me and published on The Dartmouth website.