4A - Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
C I -
4e Michioan:43at'6,19
l
An activist's appeal
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
MELANIE KRUVELIS
and ADRIENNE ROBERTS MATT SLOVIN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
ANDREW WEINER
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Upe in (firearm
Gun ownership should stay public information
n Wednesday morning, a bill passed through the Michigan
Senate Judiciary Committee that would make certain guns
manufactured in the state exempt from existing federal fire-
arms regulations. In addition to eliminating some licensing require-
ments for federal firearms dealers, the package would prevent handgun
registration records from being publicly available under the Freedom
of Information Act. This measure to limit public records is considered
a response to a map published in New York newspaper The Journal
News, which listed information about registered gun owners in their
area. Despite controversy surrounding the paper's decision to publish
the map, the Michigan bill shouldn't move forward with this legisla-
tion. Michigan residents deserve to have access to these public records.
his one's for the activists against injustice means standing up
and for those who want to against all injustice - big or small.
be activists. Ann Arbor is I beg to differ on this point. The
quite the lib- fact of the matter is that not all
eral community, injustices are created equal.
often referred The problem isn't that you
to as a progres- shouldn't fight for something you
sive's utopia. It's believe in. The problem is that if
a place of many you call yourself a feminist but
people who feel spend time fighting for a woman's
strongly about right to open her own door, you're
an issue and HARSHA going to trivialize the larger issues
want to change NAHATA at play. It's hard to have a seri-
something in ous conversation about women's
the world. After rights and cultural undertones
all, the early inception of the Peace that impact how woman are seen
Corps is our claim to fame. in society if the conversation keeps
Over the years, I've found that hinging on whether or not a woman
here you can find a place for pretty should take offense to someone
much everything and everyone. holding the door open for her. This
The list of student organizations is conversation isn't likely to win
never-ending, and there's an entire someone over to your side or create
subset of organizations dedicated awareness about the larger issue of
to spreading awareness about social gender norms, it's simply going to
justice or political issues. elicit stereotyping statements like
From feeding the squirrels to "feminists are angry women that
more serious causes such as sus- hate everything."
tainability, tuition equality, raising Latching onto a small issue
awareness about sexual assault or instead of tackling the larger issue
writing letters to urge the stop of at hand alienates the very people
human rights abuses around the you are trying to convince: those
world - most of the time it's breath- who oppose your cause to begin
taking to see the passion and deter- with. They're then are able to write
mination students have to change it off as something trivial.
the world. -.There's merit to the argument
But I've also noticed that some-. that it's the bigger injustice that
times it's easy to get lost in all of the influences these smaller daily
causes. Sometimes with the mindset actions and that we should raise
of being an activist comes this ten- awareness at every possible oppor-
dency - need, even - to challenge- tunity. But there's a problem when
everything. Across campus, there's we expect to change people's minds
this idea that you can't simply be an about bigger issues by focusing on
activist for one cause; to stand up smaller problems. In reality, we
should be changing their minds
about the larger matters first and
the smaller things will follow.
Even if we change small things -
if we get everyone to recycle plastic
bottles, or not use "guys" to describe
a group of people or to hold doors
open for anyone, we're only chang-
ing one small aspect of their behav-
ior. The mindset remains the same.
This isn't in any way to devalue the
impact of these small changes, but
alone they aren't enough. It's not
enough to get people to do some-
thing if they don't understand why '
they're doing it.
In reality, not all
injustices are
created equal.
There are many ways to be an
activist. We don't always have to
feel the need to fight against the
world to do so. Social change isn't
something that can be imposed
upon people. Just telling people
to change their behavior doesn't
always do justice to your cause.
More often than not, it's impor-
tant to change people's mindsets,
to give them more information that
will change how they view an issue
instead of forcing them to change
how they live.
- Harsha Nahata can be
reached at hnahata@umich.edu.
Proponents of such legislation argue that
it prevents gun owners from being unfairly
targeted by malicious or defamatory use of
this information. Although inflammatory and
controversial in light of increasing national
debate over gun laws, publishing publicly
available information about the holders of
firearms permits was within the purview of
the journalists. In an era of increasing acces-
sibility to personal information, a perceived
breach of privacy rights isn't addressed most
efficiently by reacting to this particular map.
If the journalists' actions are to be challenged
in light of this specific incident, it should be
part of a wider conversation about access to
personal information, not as justification to
promote the special interests of some.
Michigan's current laws regulating the
privacy of gun ownership information aren't
uniformly and comprehensively defined.
Although Michigan law already exempts
holders of concealed pistol permits from
being disclosed under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act, records of purchase permits
provided by local law enforcement are still
available to the public. In lieu of a thorough
legislative process, the proposed bills are
strictly reactionary and fail to examine the
structure and motivations for gun control
laws in the state.
Firearm permits are issued to vet poten-
tial gun owners, introducing a measure of
accountability to the use of guns. Statistics
from the FBI show that nearly 67 percent of
homicides in the United States are commit-
ted with firearms. As with other products
that may pose a threat to public safety, guns
are federally and state-regulated devices.
FOIA was created to provide accountability
and transparency of legally regulated activi-
ties and to ensure that the safety, security and
rights of the public aren't outweighed by the
interests of policymakers or special interest
groups.
Michigan should uphold the example set
by federal legislation and promote public and
government accountability. The bill being
considered by the state legislature is a reac-
tionary response to an isolated incident and
doesn't address the issue at the heart of the
gun control debate.. If a conversation about
gun rights occurs at the legislative level, the
state government needs to set a precedent
that makes accountability a priority and the
disclosure of gun ownership part of the rule,
not the exception.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, James Brennan, Eli Cahan, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis,
Patrick Maillet, Jasmine McNenny, Harsha Nahata, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski,
Paul Sherman, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Derek Wolfe
Practice practical optimism. 1
IAN ROBINSON AND BONNIE HALLORAN I
Protect Michigan's unions
As the University community commemo-
rates the accomplishments of Martin Luther
King Jr. this week, we should remember his
opposition to right-to-work laws, such as
the one rushed through the lame-duck ses-
sion of the Michigan legislature in Dec. 2012.
Here are King's words from a 1961 speech -
words that members of University Lecturers'
Employee Organization are posting on their
doors: "We must guard against being fooled
by false slogans, such as right-to-work. It's a
law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Wherever these laws have been passed, wages
are lower, job opportunities are fewer and
there are no civil rights. We demand this
fraud be stopped."
What are right-to-work laws? Right-to-
work laws allow employees to opt out of
union dues, even though American labor law
requires collective agreements to cover all
employees in a bargaining unit. Doingso is like
letting people consume government services
and then decide whether they want to pay any
taxes. Right-to-work laws first became a legal
possibility when the federal Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947 outlawed collective agreements
requiring union membership as a condition
of getting a job, and permitted states to pass
right-to-work statutes to encourage free-rid-
ing. The earliest states to pass right-to-work
laws were all in the south, but they gradually
spread out of their regional stronghold. In
December, Michigan became the 24th state to
pass right-to-work legislation.
King understood that Taft-Hartley - and
with it, right-to-work-was motivated atleast
as much by anti-black as by anti-union ani-
mus. He knew that the collapse of organized
labor's drive to organize the south - which
was intended by Taft-Hartley - was a huge
blow, not just to unions but to the civil rights
movement as well.
Today, right-to-work is still an anti-union
and an anti-worker measure. So what is the
University, while celebrating King, doing to
reduce the negative impact of right-to-work
on working people and minorities in this
state? So far, very little. There are nine unions
at the University. On the Ann Arbor campus,
seven of these unions have a direct impact on
students: American Federation of State, Coun-
ty and Municipal Employees, Slpilled Trades,
Operating Engineers; Police Officers Asso-
ciation of Michigan; the Nurses' Union; the
Lecturers' Employee Organization; and the
Graduate Employee's Organization.
The first five unions represent employees
who are often invisible to students: the cus-
todial staff, campus mail handlers, operators
of the heating and coolingsystems, the nurses
who work in the University's health system
and campus safety officers. However, the first
four play a critical role in making the campus
function smoothly, and, of those, the police
officers and the nurses might save your life
in that rare moment of crisis. You do see the
teachers in LEO and GEO every day. Togeth-
er, we account for about half of all University
undergraduate teaching (measured as "stu-
dent credit hours").
We should ask ourselves: What can the Uni-
versity do? A lot. University administrators
can sit down with unions that represent about
half of the workers on this campus and offer
to substantially lengthen their collective bar-
gaining agreements. Michigan's right-to-work
legislation does not come into effect until late
March 2013. If the University and the unions
agree to long extensions before that deadline,
it would give the unions many years of pro-
tection against right-to-work. LEO is the first
union to negotiate a new contract under the
threat of right-to-work, and the administra-
tion could start by committing to complete
the bargaining process by early March. So far,
however, they've dragged their feet.
Last Friday, they offered a proposal that
would deny the union the ability to collec-
tive bargaining benefits. Such a proposal is
antithetical to LEO's existence as a union,
and creates a major roadblock for reaching
an agreement in time to safeguard the union
from the negative impact of right-to-work.
If you believe in King's dream, and you
understand the critical importance of revital-
izing both the civil rights and the labor move-
ment, and if that dream is to be realized, then
stand up and be counted. You can support
LEO by signing an online petition. You also
can e-mail University President Mary Sue
Coleman, University Provost Phil Hanlon and
the regents to let them know you think that
the University should stand with King and
agree to negotiate contract extensions with
all University unions before the right-to-work
law takes effect.
Ian Robinson is a Political Science
and Sociology lecturer. Bonnie Halloran
is an Anthropology lecturer.
nglish teacher John Keating
tells his students in "Dead
Poets Society," "This is a
battle - a war
- and the casu-
alties could be
your hearts and
souls." The same
could be said for
the battle that4
many college
students endure
as they struggle MICHAEL
to figure out SPAETH
where their lives
are headed.
On one side, we have the idealists.
They're the doe-eyed optimists who
are absolutely convinced that they'll
change the world for the better. They
follow the advice of older adults who
urge college students to do what they
love in life no matter what negative
consequences result from that deci-
sion. They aren't concerned about
money and are certain that every-
thing will work out in the end.
On the other side, we have the
cynics. They've become hardened
after enduring many disappoint-
ments over the years. They listen
to older adults and pundits who
continuously reinforce the notion
that some things cannot be done or
that other things "just don't work
that way." They claim to know what
"reality" is and relentlessly mock
idealists as naive people who just
don't understand the "real world."
Although we may fluctuate from
time to time, we usually identify
with one side or the other. We rare-
ly consider the possibility that there
might be a fertile middle ground
between these two sides. In this
middle ground, we have the prac-
tical optimists. They're the people
who set their sights on an end goal,
however improbable it may be, and
stubbornly pursue that goal until
they succeed - while also remain-
ing keenly aware of the realities of
the environment in which they're
working.
Many of the great figures in our
history have been practical opti-
mists. For example, Steven Spiel-
berg's latest film "Lincoln" shows
how the 16th president managed to
gather enough votes to get the 13th
Amendment passed, despite howls
of protest from the cynics around
him. Lincoln was absolutely com-
mitted to the lofty ideal of abolish-
ing slavery forever, but he had the
political acumen to figure out how
to actually get it done.
It's understandable that many
college students are cynical these
days, particularly in an incredibly
polarized political environment
and with uncertain job prospects in
the aftermath of the Great Reces-
sion. In August, a student writ-
ing for The Rice Standard at Rice
University praised cynicism: "It
takes courage to accept things for
the way they are, however bad (or
even good) they might be. Cynically
accepting things for the way they
are is perhaps the only way to truly
appreciate them."
I don't dispute the idea that we
should accept things for the way
they are, but I firmly reject the
notion that this acceptance must
last forever. The current realities of
the world can't be the end point -
they have to be the starting point.
We need a very clear understanding
of how things are so we can intel-
ligently figure out what concrete
actions to take so we can change
the world for the better. This is how
we become practical optimists. The
question isn't whether we can cre-
ate positive changes in the world.
Instead, the question is how we cre-
ate those changes.
It's easy to mock idealism, but
while the realities of the world will
bruise many idealists, cynicism is
completely self-destructive. If we
instantly dismiss something that
could improve society for the better
as "unrealistic," then we're conced-
ing defeat before we've even fought
the battle in the first place. That
isn't courage at all.
It's easy to mock
idealism, but
cynicism is
self-destructive.
Reality might limit our options
right now, but we can at least get
started in making our vision for a
better world a reality. Or better yet,
we can think of innovative options
that no one else has considered,
which could change the status quo
altogether. We are a new generation
that grew up with the Internet. We
are more accepting of diversity than
past generations and have tremen-
dous potential. Surely we can come
up with something that will change
the world for the better - even if
that change isn't instantaneous.
We have to try every option at
our disposal. As President Franklin
Roosevelt once said, "It is common
sense to take a method and try it.
If it fails, admit it frankly and try
another. But above all, try some-
thing." We can't stop until we suc-
ceed. And we can't let the cynics get
in our way.
- Michael Spaeth can be
reached at micspa@umich.edu.
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM
40 years later, Roe
still controversial
TO THE DAILY:
On Jan. 23, the Daily published'
"40 years later, still fighting" about
the 40th anniversary of the Roe v.
Wade decision.While I disagree with
Manes's view, Ihad a bigger problem
with her rhetoric. She uses terms
like "reproductive justice," "need-
less waiting" and "the rightto decide
when and if to have children" to
avoid discussing the most important manizing." Manes assumes that all
moral questions surrounding abor- restrictions are "dehumanizing,"
tion: Is the fetus human and does it but clarification here is necessary.
have the right to life? Manes sets up She surely can't hold the view that
a straw man by switching the topic to restricting sex-selective, third-tri-
rights versus restrictions and choice mester or partial-birth abortions are
versus coercion. The opposing forces more dehumanizing than abortion
that she presents don't want abor- itself. To not object to these practic-
tion to be restricted in order to sub- es is fine, but it's shallow to say that
jugate women as she claims. Rather, people who don't object are actually
those of us in the "opposition" want dehumanizing those who choose to
to affirm the fetus's right to live. have an abortion.
What I found mostinsulting,how-
ever, was Manes's description of all Jonathan Lesnau
restrictions on abortion as "dehu- LSA sophomore
i
a
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include
the writer's full name and University affiliation. We do not print anonymous letters.
Send letters to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.