4 4 - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. r, '' , r Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position oftthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. Laggieng on LEED Coleman must back up call for sustainability with action greener University may be on the way, according to Presi- dent Mary Sue Coleman's speech yesterday. In her annual State of the University address, she focused on plans to double research spending and increase environmental sustainabil- ity at the University. And while she's right to make these two issues priorities of the University, it's important that her words translate to action, especially concerning sustainability. The University has lagged behind others in creating a more environmentally friendly campus and Coleman should erase past failings by truly revamp- ing University buildings and energy practices. ELAINE MORTON I 4 I .4.I - - - - - I t5ac inmuy} eh +fwies rihane ynos ortlB he TV. l~kin ay lyr ~id Q~tA ll~l~t'56or' iclriswes f 11O t % a lk Nothing is free 4 There's no easier punching bag for people on all parts of the political spectrum than a person who even subtly implies that freedom of speech is not absolute. And yet, here I go. During last week's debate over reggae artist Buju Banton's appear- ance in Ann Arbor, some people were IMRAN outraged by the SYED message this appar- ently homophobic musician furthers with every performance. Some sim- ply decried the Blind Pig for allowing him to perform, while others thought it their right to prevent him from per- forming. The latter group drew criticism of its own. While it's okay to protest hateful speech, the critics argued, it's never okay to try to silence fringe viewpoints. This isn't a new argument - the battle for free speech is about protecting fringe viewpoints, because those are the ones that can't protect themselves. While I understand that argument, I wonder why that's the rule. Liberals like to argue that the Con- stitution is an abstract concept, not simply a laundry list of rights. They reject absolute, concrete readings of most parts of the document because they believe such nearsightedness detracts from the Constitution's larg- er purpose - to create a free, progres- sive, prosperous society. There is no more prominent exam- ple of this than the Second Amend- ment. Liberals laugh at the right's literal reading of the right to bear arms. They contend that the Second Amendment was a proxy to counter the tyranny America was emerging from. It wasn't meant to imply that every citizen may own a gun, but sim- ply affirmed that the nation's military would serve the will of the people and not the whims of a solitary despot. I happen to buy that argument. I think it makes sense that the framers intended the Second Amendment to counter the evils they suffered under their former British overlords. But what if the First Amendment is also a proxy - not meant to be read literally, but rather meant as a check against the tyrannical ways that speech had been suppressed in the colonies? Could it be that the free speech part of the First Amendment never stood for "anyone can say any- thing at any time," but rather, simply meant the government cannot sup- press individual ideas for the further- ance of its official stance? I buy that argument, too. One of the most famous articula- tionsregardingthe boundaries offree- dom of speech was made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. Holmes wrote that imminently dangerous speech that serves no pur- pose, like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, isn't protected under the First Amendment. Most ofus can agree with the result, but I contend that the line Holmes drewwas rather arbitrary. Some liber- tarians have contested that even yell- ing "fire" in a crowded theater could be a protected right. If it causes prob- lems, the theater owner has a claim against the shouter, but that doesn't take away the shouter's initial right to shout "fire" whenever and wherever he pleases. Like my libertarian friends, I believe that to draw a boundary line anywhere in the realm of free speech is to question all speech. But unlike them, I don't see this as a problem. Yes, speech can be limited. Rather than hiding behind the First Amend- ment, individual speakers must pro- tect their ideas with veracity, logic and persuasion. Freedom of speech was designed as a proxy for creating a society in which constructive ideas freely flourish and can be used as a base for progress and solutions. It wasn't meant to sustain idiocy and hatred, and yet too often, we Americans proudly say that it was. By elongating the First Amendment to protect obscene hate speech, we harm our freedom and prosperity. That undermines the actual larger purpose of the Constitution. Even the First Amendment has its limits. Some will say that what I argue is dangerous because once speech is lim- ited, even legitimate minority argu- ments will be suppressed. That would 4 be true, but only if we take the lazy, passive approach to rights that we've gotten used to taking under the status quo. Technology has brought us to the point at which free knowledge exchange can't be seriously threat- ened - at least not so long as the abstract reading of the First Amend- ment as a check against totalitarian- ism remains in force. When speech is no longer protected simply because it is speech, we won't all magically be deemed mute. Instead, we will begin to actively assess the merits of what we're saying and what is being said in the million conversations that make up our nation. But even that may be a frightening noionyto some. - Imran Syed can be reached at galad@umich.edu. President Coleman's speech recounted a number of developments at the Univer- sity, including its success in reaching total research funding of more than $1 billion for the first time in the University's his- tory. Coleman expects this figure to double by 2017, which would surpass the nation's current leader, John Hopkins University, at $1.55 billion annually. She also spent significant time announcing the creation of several new positions and committees designed to make the University more sus- tainable. These included the Sustainability Executive Council, which will monitor sus- tainability at the University, and the Office of Campus Sustainability, which will coor- dinate sustainability programs on campus. Focusing on sustainability is certainly appropriate, given the critical importance of environmental preservation issues. Wide-scale environmental challenges like global warming, biodiversity loss and increasing scarcity in resources like fresh water are now well-documented and pose very real threats to animals and humans alike. Experts andthe-public are-increas-- ingly forced to acknowledge that the planet's growing population of consumers can only be sustained through two routes: more environmentally friendly practices or serious and permanent damage to the environment, at home and abroad. With such high stakes, it's disappoint- ing, if not surprising, that administrators have allowed the University to fall behind the curve on sustainability. Coleman deliv- ered her speech at the newly constructed Ross School of Business, which features environmentally friendly construction and achieved silver LEED (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design) certi- fication. But this building came in behind Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy's new business school and Stanford's planned business school, which are both expected to receive higher LEED certifica- tions. And the University's new B-School was only the second building on campus to receive LEED certification. The other building, the School of Natural Resource's Dana Building, only features a suitably green design because students approached administrators and urged them to modify their plans and pursue LEED certification. Making matters worse, Coleman told the Daily in an interview after her speech that she isn't going to sign the American Col- lege and University Presidents' Climate Commitment. The commitment, which aims to combat greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming, has already been signed by 654 university presidents. Cole- man claims that the environmental stan- dards called for by the commitment are -mrealistic, -butsettingdifficultgoa-lsisone of the best ways to ensure that progress on environmental issues is made. Coleman's inaction here calls into question how seri- ous her commitment to a sustainable Uni- versity really is. Administrators must make sure that Coleman's comments on sustainability amount to more than just lip service. Form- ing committees is just a start - adminis- trators must actively look for ways to make buildings more environmentally friendly. And they should listen to students ideas on the subject, too. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Leiters are edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu. SUNIA ARIF Combating racism in schools 4 4 Right to free speech doesn't justify homophobia and hate ND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU booked not only Buju in the past, but other acts even more controversial for their homophobic lyrics. I wonder exactly how this excuses their endorsement this time of an artist known for his homophobic lyrics. In any case, Berry seemed to TO THE DAILY: be implicitly aski I was involved in the protest of the Buju Ban- testing at those e ton concert at the Blind Pig on Sept. 30, and answer to that qu after following the media coverage of the event ting tired of deal over the last few days, there are a few things I haps we are justb would like to clarify. First, this protest was not a part of a "gay Matthew Leslie agenda." This protest was about equality on a School of Music,I variety of levels. Banton has called for violent action against an underrepresented and under- M ayor privileged community. To me, it doesn't mat- Hl ter what the unifying factor of this community i happens to be, but rather that there is someone side again seeking to harm members of that community. Furthermore, there were not only matters TO THE DAILY: of homophobia present here but also problems In responset of ethnic prejudice. Jason Berry, the booking Mayor John Hie manager for the Blind Pig, said in his statement to censor speech to protesters that Banton's viewpoints were gusted the Daily just a manifestation of Caribbean culture and protest, 10/01/20( that our protest was merely an example of two Hieftje camec cultures butting heads. As a queer person of defending the L Caribbean descent, I take great offense to this. help broker a dea It is a lie that Caribbean culture is homoge- that we could pu neously homophobic. I submit that if the Blind along. He addres Pig wanted to cater to the small but important if it was up to him Caribbean community inAnn Arbor, they could been performing have done so by booking a Caribbean artist who free speech. He doesn't advocate hate and violence - of which of Ann Arbor sho there are many. Furthermore, the protest and allowing Buju Ba: the protesters have no problems with the Carib- The mayor ho bean community in Ann Arbor, but rather the attention to the f ignorance at the Blind Pig that allowed this mances are not* concert to happen. I sent Mayor H Second, I want to address the topic of "free because as a me speech," which seems to be repeatedly coming nity, it meant a g up both in the media and in my personal conver- ported us. If The] sations about the event. In no way was the pro- KKK member an test infringing upon Banton's free speech, nor it, would the Dai did the protest even have anything to do with trying to censor free speech. While the freedom of speech as it is everyone does no interpreted in this country does allow people to As recently as voice their opinions openly, it does not guaran- his music to advt tee them to be booked for a concert at the Blind people. I'm glad Pig, which is precisely what we were protesting. speak out again Banton has every right to speak homophobia the venues that h and hatred in his own life. We just ask that Ann those who advoc: Arbor establishments not promote this kind of of anyone to be a entertainment. test. Sure, they ca I would like to conclude by focusing on anoth- our rights to prot er comment made by Berry. In speaking with us, he expressed surprise at the fact that we were Mitchell Meyle protesting this concert, since the Blind Pig had Alum ing why we had not been pro- vents, as well. I don't know the uestion, but maybe we are get- ing with homophobia. Or per- beginning to find our voice. -Santana Theatre & Dance senior ieftje was right to st offensive lyrics to the editorial saying that ftje shouldn't use his power , I must say that I'm quite dis- would say that (A pig and a 09). out in support of our protest GBTQ community, trying to l with The Blind Pig in hopes ut this behind us and just get sed the crowd and told us that , this performer wouldn't have tonight, but he didn't censor acted as any admirable citizen uld when he spoke out against nton to perform. ped that he could help bring act that these kinds of perfor- what Ann Arbor is all about. ieftje a personal thank you, mber of the LGBTQ commu- reat deal to know that he sup- Blind Pig had booked a Nazi or d the mayor spoke out against ily really accuse the mayor of free speech? It's just sad how t see these parallels. 2006, Buju Banton has used ocate violence against LGBTQ I my mayor feels he needs to nst performers like this and host them. We simply can't let ate for the murder and torture llowed to speak without pro- an speak, but we are all within test them at every word. For years, racism has been presented to me as an obsolete issue. As an elementary school student, I recall learning about the Holocaust, the key players in the civil rights movements and the Japanese-Americans during the internment era. I read narratives of Anne Frank and Frederick Douglass, but my attempt to actually recognize the contemporary incidents related to these persecutions frequently failed. These incidents were handled with a hands-off, historical approach, separate from present- day people and issues. Because of this, it's easy to believe that racism is an ideology of the past. In order for youth to gain a more modern understanding of racism, the concept of racism needs to be presented in a more contemporary fashion through candid dialogue. Unfortunately, racism isn't only an ideology of the past. It still remains a very relevant problem today - even locally. As reported by the Daily, a 16-year-old Muslim girl was attacked on a school bus in Ann Arbor less than a month ago (Muslim teen reportedly attacked in Ann Arbor, 09/19/2009). The assailants, the girl's peers, reportedly chanted, "Fuck Arabs, they are dirty," while pulling off her Islamic headscarf. The girl required six stitches to her face as a result of the injuries. When I first heard about this incident, I was shocked that it could have happened - especially in an area like Ann Arbor, which is celebrated for a liberal and diverse culture. How could anyone commit such a hateful crime? But then again, are these young assailants really at fault? These students, like me, have been introduced to the con- cept of racism as if it has ceased to exist. But racism does exist, and kids are aware of it. For many families and teachers of children, a call for more dialogue regarding racial issues can be challenging to employ. Those who find the idea difficult argue that the more we identify and discuss racial differences, the more apparent race becomes to children. Contrary to this argu- ment, according to a study published in Newsweek on Sept. 5, children naturally categorize almost everything according obvious visual factors like race. In the study, University of Colorado professor Phyllis Katz asked a group of 3-year-old children to choose friends out of a pile of photographs. Of the Caucasian children, 86 percent chose friends of their own race. Two years later, Katz met with the same children and asked them to split a pile of pictures using any method they preferred. This time, 68 percent of the children used race to categorize the piles. Studies similar to Katz's reveal that race is a visible characteristic to children, discernable at a young age. Assuming that this theory is valid, discussion about cur- rent racial issues in schools will not hinder a child's abil- ity to see each other as equals because children already inherently recognize differences in color. Children learn most from experience and discussion, so an earnest con- versation on race will only build a better foundation for students to understand racism. Experience and discussion is also what led me to a deeper comprehension of racism. As a Muslim-American, the time following Sept. 11 was a period in which my peers questioned my faith and neglected to understand Muslims beyond what the media reported. Initially, I was upset by these remarks. But then participated in multicultural and dialogue groups that raised awareness of Islam and encouraged conversation around racial issues. Because of my exposure to such programs, I was able to make better sense of what racial problems face the world today and help others avoid being racist. When I looked into the story of the Muslim girl who was attacked in Ann Arbor, I couldn't help but wonder if this crime could have been avoided if the assailants had been offered a type of racial dialogue similar to the one I had after Sept. 1L The assailants were African Ameri- can, and could have been victims of racism themselves. But through their experience and education, they may not have been given the opportunity for dialogue to deal with racial issues and diffuse racial resentment. Had they been given the chance to talk about race, they may have seen racism as more than a fact of life. Talking about prevalent matters of racism, rather than simply learning about the past, is the most important step for understanding racism and subsequently combating it. Until we recognize the fact that these issues are still alive, we will continue to fail students in their comprehension of race and racism. Once schools draw the bridge between past and prese. Sunia Arif is an Business sophomore. 4 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith