freckayle

Kayla R. Temple / Policy Memo GOV 204, 12:30 TR / April 19th 2017

Background: After nearly 7 years of civil war and insurgency in Syria, the Refugee Crisis has reached a critical point requiring a long term perspective. The conflict has shown no signs of slowing down, and the intrinsically complicated nature of the war renders Turkish action alone incapable of creating resolution. The Syrian Civil War has displaced more than 11 million people, with 4.8 million Syrian refugees currently seeking asylum in foreign countries and 6.3 million internally displaced (“Syria: the 21st”). Turkey has absorbed the largest volume of this “irregular migration,” with more than 2.75 million registered Syrians (“Report Number 214”). The sheer quantity of refugees has created tensions for Turkey internationally and domestically as the country assumes an expanding role in the Syrian refugee crisis. Inadequate, outdated, and vague international protection policies and structures aggravate these pressures, and action must be taken to reevaluate standing organizations and procedures to adjust for the long term. Syrians in Turkey currently have “temporary protection” as asylum seekers under Turkish international protection laws (“Report Number 214”). Geographic limitations included in the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees only allows official refugee status for Europeans fleeing either European conflict (“Protecting Refugees”). Current refugee service policies aim to administer social services, translation services, and work permits; implementation and success of these services remains lacking (“Refugee Law and Policy”). Only 10% of Syrians live in government and non profit-administered refugee camps; the other 90% have settled in various provinces of Turkey, often in slums and with overcrowded living situations due to high housing expenses (“Report Number 214”). The paradoxical relationship between the Turkish people and the Syrian Refugees and polarized domestic politics further complicates policy options. 80% of Turkish citizens in 2013 opposed citizenship for Syrian refugees, and 62% of Turkish citizens believe that Syrians negatively impact moral values and social status quo, despite the fact that less than 0.5% of Syrians in Turkey committed criminal offenses between 2011 and 2014 (“Report Number 214”). Furthermore, Turkish politics and parties are divided along identity bases, and Kurdish and Alevi ethnic and sectarian groups are especially wary of Justice and Development Party (AKP) refugee policies and the potential to disadvantage in minority communities by pushing off refugee responsibilities with out accounting for proper resources and ethnic, religious, and sectarian differences. Additionally, poorer populations in Turkey view refugees’ free access to public services, as well as their presence in informal labor systems, as a direct threat to their own livelihoods and quality of life.  Despite distrust and resentment of Syrians, most of Turkey does not favor refoulement, and many proudly view Turkey’s agreement with the EU as proof of Turkey’s moral superiority (“Report Number 214”). This deal gives Turkey nearly complete responsibility and authority to reduce and prevent the irregular migration of Syrians to Europe. In return, the European Commission has committed to giving Turkey €3 billion to manage the crisis and reduced visa restrictions for Turkish citizens. The European Commission currently reports that Turkey is not doing enough to slow migration into Europe from their country, while anti-EU sentiments rise as Turkey struggles to absorb huge influxes and Europe refuses to accept any humanitarian responsibility, a classic collective action problem (Collet; Freiden, et al.).  

Policy Options: - Renegotiate EU Agreement: Turkey’s bargain with the EU burdens Turkey with a great portion of the refugee crisis, both in reducing irregular migration and providing for millions of refugees. Turkey also takes on the domestic political pressures of accepting large, ethnically and religiously homogenous populations that don’t necessarily align with already present values and groups. Renegotiating this deal so that European countries accept an increased refugee population could reduce the stress of the current refugee populations on already inadequate structures and already agitated communities. While many Syrians have expressed desire to eventually return to Syria, as well as a fear that European migration would prevent that, increased absorption of Syrian refugees into Europe would likely improve the living situations of many Syrians. The addition of and increased distribution of European resources such as healthcare would reduce the general overwhelm of public services in Turkey. Renegotiation could diminish the stress Syrian populations place on their localities as well as the surrounding disadvantaged Turkish populations. This could, however, receive political backlash due to the current narrative of moral superiority and anti-EU sentiments that surround the deal as it stands. - Integration: Syrian refugees currently do not operate under a sustainable system – refugee populations are isolated and inhibited by language and cultural barriers and regulations. Integration of Syrians, especially children, into the society on which they depend is critical to reducing tensions between Turkish and refugee groups and to the constructive contributions of Syrians to Turkish society. Integration procedures would include encouraging enrollment of children into Turkish schools, the promotion of Turkish language programs for adults and children, and improved access for Syrians to public housing and work rights. Currently, there are no public housing options for refugees beyond the camps, and high housing costs encourage isolation and overcrowding of Syrians into slums and impoverished neighborhoods. 90% of Syrian refugees face these housing costs, but only 0.2% of the Syrian refugee population holds a work permit (“Report Number 241”). Integration procedures and policies would reduce the pressure of housing expenses as well as encourage formal and open work practices amongst the refugees, eventually removing pressures from unskilled Turkish workers competing for informal labor. Integration would require restructuring of current policies, increased government spending on education and housing programs, and increasing the labor supply by as many as 2 million when unemployment already stands at 3.5 million. While this could create economic pressures, the €3 billion from the EU agreement could hopefully help Turkey absorb the costs and recessive economic effects, and integration itself would reduce social and political pressures that threaten state security, especially after the attempted coup in July 2016 (“Report Number 241”). - Citizenship: Granting certain refugees the full rights and responsibilities of Turkish citizenship takes integration further. Citizenship would reduce the resentment resulting from the freeloader perception of Syrian refugees who don’t pay into the public and social service system but do continue to benefit from it. This would also increase Syrian motivation to integrate and assimilate into Turkish society and improve the condition of Syrians across Turkey who suffer from poverty as direct result of lack of opportunity.  However, citizenship is actively opposed by many in Turkey, especially Kurdish nationalists and Alevis who view granting citizenship – and voting rights – to majority Sunni conservative Syrians as an attempt by the Justice and Development party (AKP) to expand their voter base and ensure long term power and influence. Syrians could face increased resentment and social tension where identity alignments already polarize high pressure politics, and the stability of Turkish government could be shaken by such a policy (“Report Number 241”). - Reorganizing Refugee Programs: An alternative to complete integration and citizenship would be to stabilize refugee systems, and improve access to public services, housing, and education. This could involve altering international law to redefine “refugee” and grant Syrians full refugee status and its rights and privileges. This option is an extended short term solution with an understanding that Syrians will eventually return to Syria, and would only aim to solve the symptoms - and not the root - of the pressures surrounding the crisis. This alternative would assuage political fears held by Alevis and Kurdish nationals that AKP isn’t taking advantage of the refugees to expand political influence, as well as solve the more pressing issues surrounding low quality of life for refugees.

Recommendation A combination of integration and renegotiation of the EU deal would reduce domestic and international pressures of supporting and integrating the nearly 3 million Syrian refugees living in Turkey. Renegotiation would increase the amount of resources available to refugees and cut down the complete inundation of refugees on Turkish public and social services that restricts access both by other Syrians and Turkish citizens. This would further reduce resentment and social tensions surrounding refugee populations in Turkey, making integration a smoother process, especially as Syrians enter the workforce while employment is still relatively high amongst Turks. Renegotiation would still allow Turkey to take a moral high ground relative to European countries, and overtaking direction of crisis management could strengthen Turkey’s international standing. Integration and renegotiation complement each other well in alleviating stressors on refugee populations while assuaging domestic fears of political manipulation and allowing Turkey to emerge as a leader while still benefiting from funding and visa liberalization already key to the existing deal.  

Works Cited Collett, Elizabeth. "The Paradox of the EU Turkey Refugee Deal." Migration Policy, Migration Policy Institute, Mar. 2016, www.migrationpolicy.org/news/paradox-eu-turkey-refugee-deal. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

Freiden, et al. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions. Third ed., WW Norton.

Icduygu, Ahmet, and Dogus Simsek. "Syrian Refugees in Turkey: Towards Integration Policies." Turkish Policy Quarterly, 20 Dec. 2016, turkishpolicy.com/article/828/syrian-refugees-in-turkey-towards-integration-policies. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

Kenyon, Peter. "Turkey's Migrant Policy: They Can Come, But They Can't Settle." NPR All Things Considered, National Public Radio, 22 Oct. 2015, www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/10/22/450855100/turkeys-migrant-policy-they-can-come-but-they-cant-settle. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

"Protecting Refugees." Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org/reports/2000/turkey2/Turk009-10.htm. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

"Refugee Law and Policy: Turkey." Library of Congress, The Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/law/help/refugee-law/turkey.php. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

"Report Number 241: Turkey's Refugee Crisis: The Politics of Permanence." Crisis Group, International Crisis Group, 30 Nov. 2016, www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/turkey-s-refugee-crisis-politics-permanence. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

"Syria: the 21st Century's Worst Crisis." International Medical Corps, internationalmedicalcorps.org/syria-crisis. Accessed 19 Apr. 2017.

williamsburg, va

wcwm blaze profit share publicity

Policy Proposal: True Integration and the Achievement Gap The Wire and Urban Education in the 21st Century Kayla R. Temple / December 2016

For decades, our city’s schools have struggled to provide our students with a quality education. We have attempted to solve the issue of the achievement gap and low achievement – especially in schools serving socioeconomically disadvantaged and majority-minority student populations – through the Johnson-era idea of compensatory education. Clearly, however, compensatory education has failed – not only are students in failing schools, racial and socioeconomic isolation in these failing schools is worse than it was when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed more than half a century ago (The Racial Achievement Gap, Rothstein). It is time for this city – and possibly even this metropolitan area – to finally integrate and provide each student equal opportunity and access to a quality education.       More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared educational segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. the Board of Education, putting into motion a series of movements and plans to integrate and to oppose – often violently but more often systematically – desegregation ("School Desegregation"). At this point, Black Americans had been denied equal access to everything from equal education and housing to water fountains and pools. The state of Virginia, led by Harry Byrd, led the South in  “Massive Resistance,” the opposition movement that included “token integration” policies that allowed school districts to keep desegregation to a minimum. Districts attempting to do so typically ran “neighborhood school” plans, in which school placement is based on a student’s geographical district (Bruce). These plans relied on segregated housing patterns, which occurred because of redlining policies that even the federal government helped execute. Many of the housing projects funded by the federal government during the 1950s and 60s were racially designated, with the Federal Housing Administration providing mortgage insurance selectively to match residents and neighborhoods along racial lines. Banks practiced similar loan policies – which were approved by Federal Bank regulators – in denying loans to black families attempting to live in white neighborhoods or even attempting to purchase a home. These practices continued until the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, and not only denied African Americans fair housing opportunities but also limited economic and property investment opportunities. Redlining policies have had lasting effects, both in terms of socioeconomic standing and housing patterns, and many metropolitan areas remain segregated today, especially across county lines (“The Racial Achievement Gap,” Rothstein).       Much of this county-line segregation is a result of white flight to less racially-diverse districts during the late 1950s and 1960s, when desegregation began to take place. The Supreme Court’s decision in Milliken v. Bradley further protected this pattern as a means of avoiding desegregation by banning busing across county lines (Rothstein [Page #]). This added to the conservative educational reform attitude of the 1970s, what James Ryan calls “sparing the suburbs, saving the cities” in his book, Five Miles Away, a World Apart (Ryan, 120). This Nixon and Johnson era educational reform focused on “compensatory education” – offering students in lower achieving and typically majority minority urban areas a comparable education instead of integrating across district lines. A crucial part of this move towards compensatory education was the Coleman Report, a report commissioned by the Department of Education and carried out by James Coleman. The Nixon and Johnson administration misconstrued the findings in presenting the report to the public, emphasizing the effects of school environments, resources, and teacher quality on student achievement and the racial achievement gaps. These factors actually had minimal effect, according to the Coleman report, which found that the most important factors affecting racial achievement gaps were actually educational background, student attitude, and the racial and socioeconomic composition of a student’s peer group. As a result of this manipulation, school districts and education reformers have for decades made countless and often fruitless efforts to provide compensatory education with equal access to resources, quality teacher, and facilities in an attempt to close the achievement gap (“For Public Schools,” Rothstein).       Addressing these factors directly would be nearly impossible, especially given that many are rooted in centuries of oppression – from slavery to convict leasing, sharecropping, and underpaid minority labor – that have translated in many cases to socioeconomic disadvantage. Poverty disproportionately affects minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, and nearly 39% of African American children live below the poverty line compared to 12% of white children cite Furthermore, redlining and lasting segregation only serve to exacerbate the issue by creating concentrated socioeconomically disadvantaged populations – in 2011, 23% of poor African Americans lived in high-poverty neighborhoods. This concentration has visible racial ties – the percentage of black students attending schools with a more than 90% minority population has increased by 5% over the last two decades and the average black student’s school has a steadily decreasing proportion of white students, demonstrating that segregation in schools has been increasing. The proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged peers in the average black student’s school has increased by 16% from 1988 to 2006. This disadvantage often translates into limited access to healthcare, less educated parents, less resources, fewer opportunities especially for outside activities, and lesser and often changing housing – all factors which point to low achievement. Schools with concentrated populations of disadvantaged – often minority – students tend to be low-achieving not only as a result of disadvantage, but also because of this concentration, which typically forces a focus on remediation and discipline (“Racial Achievement Gap,” Rothstein).         While housing policy and poverty is out of the education system’s jurisdiction, the power to better integrate schools remains – to remove the aspect of concentration of disadvantage. The Coleman Report, finalized in the late 1960s, found that differences in school facilities and resources actually had little effect on the achievement gap, and instead finding the strongest factors on achievement to be a student’s educational background and the educational background and aspirations of their peers. The report also found that placing a student with a weak educational background in a group of peers with strong educational backgrounds consistently raises that student’s achievement. Meanwhile, placing a student with strong educational background in a group of peers with weaker educational backgrounds affects that student’s achievement very little. (“For Public Schools,” Rothstein). Integration would create school environments where socioeconomic disadvantage was more evenly distributed amongst student populations within the district, and thus even out the resource of stronger educational backgrounds. Furthermore, integrating along racial lines as well as socioeconomic ones would increase race exposure and finally bring about Brown v. Board’s vision of desegregation. This would eliminate the effects of redlining on educational opportunity, and similarly help reduce the effects of poverty on individual students and thus their achievement through school programs, especially access to health care. In order for integration to be effective, however, it is critical that students are well integrated across both socioeconomic and race lines; the Coleman report found that student achievement increases were greatest when a socioeconomically disadvantaged minority student was placed into a middle-income school with greater proportion of white students, and lesser when the school had a greater white and more socioeconomically disadvantaged student population (“Equality of Educational Opportunity,” The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). The plan for integration would include redistricting the school system in order to place students to maximize socioeconomic and racial diversity. Each school would be filled to attain roughly the same median income range while insuring the schools operated at roughly the same operating capacity and roughly the same distribution of minority and white students. This placement would also keep in mind a student’s geographic distance from their school. Transportation and the complications of developing such a system of placement present a challenge. However, an expanded busing system with routes to multiple schools could resolve the transportation issue, while a placement method combining algorithms and several rounds of personal review could ensure students were well placed. The plan could also include a proposal to work with the surrounding counties to integrate across county lines in order to counteract the effects of white flight. While cross-district integration is more radical, it would provide an expanded student population that typically has a stronger educational background and greater socioeconomic standing. The token integration and compensatory education movements of the late 20th century have left our students behind, especially as redlining and discriminatory housing policies have created geographically segregated neighborhoods, further concentrating minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged students in their neighborhood schools. Segregation has only been exacerbated over the last few years, and as compensatory efforts continue to fail, it has become apparent that integration is a critical option to resolving the issue of low achievement in urban areas. The benefits of integration, not only in increasing student achievement but also in thus creating more educated parents, outweigh the challenges of complicated placement processes and transportation. This city can achieve greatness in education, and in doing so achieve the vision of educational integration in Brown v. Board.

TO: Dr. J. Kaplow FROM: Kayla R. Temple RE: The Shadow Network – 2009 Indian Cyber Security Breach DATE: Nov. 20th, 2017

ATTACK SUMMARY:

April, 2010 - Follow up investigations of Ghost Net domains revealed multiple cyber espionage networks collecting information from more than 40 compromised computer systems. Attackers utilized common domains (IE Twitter accounts, etc.) and email intermediaries to spear phish and compromise Indian computers, updating them with new command and control servers, allowing the attackers to control and access to documents, communications, and critically, contacts. Access to contacts allowed further exploitation and information collection. Nearly all of the targets were either located in or tied to India, including the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama; at least one computer at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific is suspected of compromise, based on document evaluation. Limited document recovery revealed that the network accessed critical Indian national security information, including the National Security Council Secretariat’s official evaluations of security in Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura, as well as threat assessments regarding insurgent Naxalites and Maoist groups (Deibert, 1-58). The collection of academic documents addressing PRC containment, Chinese military exports, and Sino-Indian relations, as well as the tracing of attacker control IPs to Chongqing, suggest PRC involvement in the attack; speculation is entirely circumstantial, given the ease of IP dislocation (Bhattacharyya and Pal Chaudhuri). If true, PRC involvement would indicate the use of privateering or contracting, in which the PRC hired (or at least tolerated) cyber attackers to collect such information. Initiator uncertainty creates purpose uncertainty; the composition of the small sample of retrieved documents as mostly low-market value and security and foreign affairs related information indicates some kind of state or security interest, particularly towards potential Indian and Tibetan vulnerabilities (Deibert, 1-58).

SECURITY IMPLICATIONS:

Collateral Compromise: The Shadow Network attacks highlight the critical need to for global and domestic investment and cooperation into computer and cyber security policies. The Shadow Network likely cast a massive net with many more targets; the breadth of this net indicates the real danger of collateral compromise. Increased globalization and connection heavily increases security risks, as a single compromised system can compromise an entire network; international cooperation on cyber security will be critical to improving domestic cyber and national security for every state (Deibert, 48-58). The US Dept. of State has worked on creating an international culture of “due diligence” regarding cyber security, often with regional institutions (African Union Commission, OAS, etc.) (Dept of State, 12). Public security and due diligence has improved, but private sector due diligence remains lacking; both are critical to improved global cyber security and could create vulnerabilities (Shackleford). Cyber Privateering: The multiplicity of distinct networks, combined with the suspicion of Chinese involvement, indicates a possible rise in cyber privateering and contracting. This further diverts state attachment to cyber espionage and sabotage operations, reducing accountability and increasing the risk of private information, as a state faces uncertainty of the extent of other states’ knowledge. Privateering has risen to prominence, with both Russia and China recently facing allegations, despite any state acknowledgement of privateering, likely to avoid establishment of a norm (Kuchler). Cyber privateering is a critical vulnerability, and establishment of norms against it could increase the danger of non-state attacks on states, given the difficulty of accurate attack tracing.

Portrait d’Anaïs d’Auvergne

poetry portfolio, creative writing 212