Author: Minnie

It’s been a while since my last post, so sharing an update on what I’ve been working on recently and a few places where my writing and work have been showing up.

As I wrap my first year of my MBA candidate at Columbia Business School, I’ve been spending most of my time focused on building advanced finance and leadership capabilities while learning about climate investing and technology, real estate and infrastructure, and social enterprise. It’s been a really interesting mix of academic work, practical projects, and conversations that sit at the intersection of markets, policy, and long-term investment strategies. Also an amazing opportunity to meet and learn from new people and, of course, travel!

Along the way, I’ve had the opportunity to contribute to a few different platforms and organizations, working with incredible students, faculty, and Columbia team members.

Having joined a number of student initiatives and organizations, I am excited to be taking on the role of Vice President in my second year for both the Energy and Infrastructure Club and the Social Enterprise Club, where we work closely with the Tamer Institute for Social Enterprise and Climate Change to promote aligned initiatives across the school. I’ll also continue my current role as a member of The Hub‘s Student Advisory Board, CBS’s ‘thinktank’ driving thought leadership at the intersection of policy and business across the school.

A highlight was getting to know a series of incredible leaders in social enterprise by partnering with Professor Horton, Sandi Wright, the Tamer team, and my wonderful co-student producer Sofia to create Season 2 of the MoreMPE podcast. It was a great opportunity to step back and think more broadly about how entrepreneurship and investing can come together to drive impact globally and locally. Especially proud of the work for our capstone live event and episode, Catalysts for Change, where hundreds of students, alumni, and practitioners joined us to hear from 8 of our season’s guests on how they are navigating leadership and social enterprise in their careers.

Outside of school, my professional background and other work are reflected in a few different places, including professional updates on my LinkedIn and past riding on my YouTube. Some of my older writing can also be found at the Stanford Daily, where I was a staff writer back in the day. More links can also be found on my “Contact” page.

I’ll aim to continue to add to this over time as things evolve. Lots more to share about my time at CBS, including work from many classes including our Generative AI for Business RiskWatcher product – built end-to-end with AI – and research from my climate classes, but better something than nothing for now!

Around two weeks ago, the Turkish people voted in support of changing a portion of their constitution in order to grant President Erdogan’s additional, far-reaching powers in the government.

The referendum in its totality has been under some harsh scrutiny since it was passed, including due to ballots tallied without official stamps or markings. Some opposition parties in Turkey are in favor of this referendum’s annulment for reasons such as voter fraud, the transformation of the Prime Minister’s office, and the changes allowing Erdogan to possibly remain president until 2029. The main opposition parties, in conjunction with civil liberty groups, have provided evidence that fraudulent votes account to around 2 million.

With a narrow victory of 51.4%, there is no doubt that the country is deeply divided about the referendum itself, and will likely stay that when when its outcomes become apparent.

For many Turks, this public vote is seen as giving the president more power, with potential to allow for additional economic growth and development. Most opposition parties firmly believe that this referendum is a sudden means to acquire more power and secure Erdogan’s position without the influence of outside forces. This is quite the contrast with Erdogan’s supporters who see the changes as effective government-based alternatives to secure a more stable, prosperous financial future for Turkey.

Tana de Zulueta, who is currently the head of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has recently released a report stating that the opposition campaign was muted and the media coverage has been stilted.

More importantly, Zuleta confirmed that the electoral authority’s decision to accept unauthorized ballots resulted in a legal contradiction, changing the validity criteria. This public vote signifies the first time that Erdogan has actually lost the majority in large cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir.

The recent changes will see the removal of the prime minister position, with those responsibilities transferred over to the president. Minimizing the role of the prime minister has been an ongoing discourse for some time now, but the referendum will structurally alter how power is handled in both positions. Especially since becoming President, Erdogan has made it clear that he strongly supported a presidential system that would include extensive executive authority.

With regard to appointing Supreme Court members, the vote has also altered the number of members the president can appoint from 4 out of 22 to nearly half (5 out of 13). Unlike before when the president was not permitted to have any political affiliations under the constitution, the new referendum would allow the president to align with a political party.

Another main area in which Erdogan will have additional power will be circumventing parliament when it comes to regulating ministries and handling senior civil servants. While the president would be unable to alter or modify decrees related to human rights or freedoms, he will have the ability to bypass the cabinet, declaring a state of emergency.

In terms of legally repealing the referendum, lawmakers from the CHP (the Republican People’s Party) have recently appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, asking to provide insight into this divisive public vote. Only time will tell if there will be any legal amendments or further recourse as a result of these appeals in the weeks to come.

Beasts of No Nation is a motion picture by Cary Fukunaga. And when I say “by”, I mean that every aspect of this film has his fingerprints. With experience in both film and television (with credits on everything from Jane Eyre to True Detective), Cary Fukunaga clearly set out to realize his vision in this binding production. He was writer, director, cinematographer, and even cameraman when a leg injury prevented the cameraman from continuing to shoot the film.

A film about a young boy who is drafted into being a child soldier in a horrific war, the film is based of of the Uzodinma Iweala book of the same name. Cary Fukunaga researched child soldiers and the Sierra Leone Civil War for six years before coming across the electric-prosed novel. “I read through the novel and I loved the elegant and concise way that Uzodinma Iweala told the story.” Fukunaga said, “I felt that would be the best way to enter the subject.”

Fukunaga was clearly avoiding making Beasts of No Nation an “issue movie”. There is no specific, based-on-a-true-story conflict. There is no one place or time that this story takes place. He does not seem to seek to educate you and impassion you into action for a specific cause. This movie, instead, is about the emotional damage that is suffered by child guerrilla fighters worldwide. The spiritual conflict that lies within growing up witnessing (and committing) these atrocities, and how that affects the young, is the central idea of this film.

Fukunaga is aware of the emotional toll this takes on viewers. “No one’s gonna want to watch it, even if they hear it’s a good film,” he said before the release, noting how tough it is to persuade people “to make the time to watch something that’s emotionally taxing.”

Perhaps the most notable thing about Beasts of No Nation is that it may well be a model for future distribution. In an ever-changing media climate, how we will and how we will want to consume our entertainment is never a certainty. This film is the first fictional feature distributed by Netflix. They purchased the rights for distribution worldwide for $12 million. It was the first film to be released the same day on Netflix and in theaters. Considering this simultaneous release a violation of the unregulated but standard 90-day-release window that usually gives cinemas exclusivity, the four largest theatre chains in the United States (Cinemark, AMC, Regal, and Carmike) announced that they would be boycotting the film. Released by smaller cinemas and independent chains, the opening box office was less than stellar.  

Netflix, however, isn’t complaining. According to Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that doesn’t matter. Although historically Netflix never shares and, in fact, closely guards its streaming numbers, Sarandos revealed that the movie has already gotten 3 million views in North America. “I think [that] is a bigger audience than any specialty film could ever hope for in its first two weeks of release, and maybe for its entire run,” Sarandos told Deadline. “We are just thrilled with the total audience reach of this film, not just in North America but the world. In the first week of release, Beasts of No Nation was the most watched movie on Netflix, in every country we operate in.”

This change in distribution was certain to challenge the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ definition of what a movie actually is. What kinds of filmed entertainment should qualify for Oscar noms is a constantly-moving line that is getting blurrier every day. With made-for-TV movies, streaming services like Netflix, and DIY films and webseries letting filmmakers adhere to ANY rules, quality content and history-making releases are happening more and more with less and less ability to fit into the Academy’s mould.

Though Netflix was certainly pushing for Oscar recognition with Beasts of No Nation, no nominations were received in any category, yet.

Though it did not get a nod from the Academy, Rotten Tomatoes, a ratings and review site with a notoriously critical eye, has given it a rating of 91%. So, though Cary Fukunaga knows it will be hard for you to get yourself to watch it, I recommend you see Beasts of No Nation. And if not simply for the important story it tells – one that is so often hidden from our screens – watch it because it is part of the way filmmakers are changing the entertainment industry every day.