Danielle Levy

–A new UNICEF report tells us there are more hungry people in South Asia, a reminder of the inequalities that exist and the role we need to play to eliminate them–UNICEF reports that the impact of the economic crisis on women and children in South Asia has in the past two years resulted in a jump of 100 million in the number of people who are hungry. More than 400 million people are now chronically hungry in the region. Those earning less than two dollars a day spend up to 80% of that on food. UNICEF economist Aniruddha Bonerjee is concerned that this means that many families “have been forced into choices that one cannot accept” referring to parents feeling forced to pull their children out of school and sending them back to work in order to have enough for food. The region’s poor have born the brunt of the economic crisis and UNICEF regional director has called on India and Pakistan “to urgently reduce their defense spending and increase their social investments…”
One thing such news items assert are the inequalities existing in the world, and most of all the injustice these inequalities stand for. As such they become a reminder that we have the responsibility to put aside complacency and participate in any way possible to lessen their impact, if not their existence.

–A trend among MBA’s looks beyond making money to ethical and human concerns–It’s easy to miss news items that allow us to see the importance of values. Though small they do signify how real progress in some areas does happen. In this instance the item relates to a pledge by some 20% of the graduating Harvard Business School, one which essentially says that greed is not good. The pledge is voluntary but its mere existence is significant particularly when seen in context of a similar trend in other schools. At Columbia Business School, for example, all students must pledge to an honor code. At the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, there are now seven professors teachings an array of ethics classes which are said to be very popular.
Following the practices of Enron and Bernie Madoff and in the wake of a recession triggered by the failure of financial institutions, the trend points to a generation, where some at least, are concerned about more than making money, and want to factor in the impact of their work on the community, the lives of the workers involved and the environment. Step by step, it does indicate that in the rather near future such concerns will be standard practice.

–We must find a way to reconcile national security and individual rights lest freedom as we know it be impaired–A recent survey says that 39% of the U.S. electorate believes that our legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights over national security. This means that individual rights, the cornerstone of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and a shining example of freedom to the world, can, according to almost 40% of voters, be trumped by national security. It makes one wonder if the Bill of Rights would be able to pass voters’ approval today. The concern over national security is real. We do live in an era where terrorism cannot be forgotten. To be more clear than simplistic, one must admit that there are some very bad people out there. We must recognize that issues of national security reach deep into our feeling of safety and feeling safe is an understood basic need. The psychologist Abraham Maslow ranked it right after food and shelter. But we must also be wise enough to see through the arguments of those who misuse national security to reinforce their own agendas or pre-conceived notions—a reminder of how the Taliban initially gains a foothold in an area, by promising safety. How pollsters phrase a question does influence how it is answered. But deeper than the use of words are the principles involved. National security without individual rights does not lead to the freedom that we hail, seek and strive for. We must think through how to preserve both strengthened by the knowledge that it is not only possible, it is necessary.