4A - Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Opiio
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4t, Michigan 4:3at*lv
Ipledge no allegiance
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.
FROM THE DAILY
New search, no students
Students must pressure administration for a voice in big decisions
In 2002 - the last time a search for a new University president
occurred - the Presidential Search Committee consisted of
10 faculty members, one student, an alumnus and four other
stakeholders. With University President Mary Sue Coleman step-
ping down in July 2014, the University embarks on a new search
headed up by the Board of Regents along with eight faculty mem-
bers working to choose her successor - without a single student on
the committee. While the committee has invited students to partici-
pate in various forums over the next few months, at least one seat
should have been reserved for a student on the committee. At the
very least, students deserve an explanation for the changes in policy
during this presidential search.
ast week, the Supreme Judi-
cial Court of Massachusetts
heard arguments from a
pair of atheist
parents who
wish to strike
the phrase
"under God"
from the Pledge
of Allegiance
recited in the
state, insisting BARRY
that it ostracizes BELMONT
children like
their own from
a patriotic process. They claim that
it is their children's right to par-
ticipate in all forms of the state's
democracy and they shouldn't be
excluded simply for lacking a cer-
tain religious belief.
While the plaintiffs in the case
claimthatonlythe "under God" por-
tion of the pledge shouldn't be there,
I contend that the whole thing has
no businessbeing recited by anyone.
There are many good argu-
ments against reciting the pledge
in schools, including the fact that
making children - who are unable
to consent to anything - swear an
oath to their country every day is
quasi-tyrannical, borderline creepy
and wholly mind-numbing. There
are even those in favor of the notion
but against the recitation, argu-
ing that if you want to make some-
thing mean as little as possible you
should make children recite it every
day for 13 years.
But even beyond those argu-
ments, the pledge itself makes no
sense. Let's just start at the begin-
ning: "I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands."
Flag, United States, Republic.
First of all, I owe no allegiance to
a flag. A flag, being little more than
a piece of cloth with some color on solicited. Your taxes are withheld,
it, has little sway over who I am or your rights will be handed down
what I do. I outgrew the period of and you can't vote "no" to the pro-
my life where the color of my cloth- cess. Honest Abe's propositional
ing mattered - in high school, I government of prepositional phras-
reckon - and now my relationship es means that I'm culpable whether
with clothes is purely functional. I want to beor not.
Only insofar as a flag tells me which The next bit - "one nation under
way the wind blows do I have any God" - is the section that Massa-
cause to raise one. chusetts parents have taken issue
Secondly, I owe no allegiance to with, as do many other atheists and
the United States of America. Most- all sorts of religious people livingin
ly because I have no idea what's this country who do not subscribe
required in order to do so in this to the Abrahamic God. How this
context. Loyalty, fidelity, obedience line makes no sense is self-explan-
- what do any of these even mean atory: It is simply incorrect.
in relation to a country? Is this alle- To make matters worse, this
giance to the government that runs nation of people is posited to be
it, to the people "indivisible,"
that live in it, or likely for poetic
to the boundar- Justice is OnlyT flair. Of course
ies that enclose J we are divis-
it? To what and justice if it is for ible. The nation
to whom am I is divisible
swearing this allright down to
faithfulness? every person it
And in what claims and then
ways am I to be some. We're all
faithful, to be obedient, or to be individuals with individual hopes
loyal? In what ways am I to mani- and drives. We must be divisible if
fest this allegiance? By agreement, human rights are to mean anything:
by assent, by assurance? I cannot Human rights rest on the assump-
assure the borders, I cannot assent tion that people mean something in
to all the actions of the people and and of themselves.
I cannot agree to the government. If we were truly indivisible, then
Thirdly, I owe no allegiance to the part that matters most - "lib-
the republic. So that we are on the erty and justice for all" - would be
same page, I take a republic here utterly incoherent. People can be
to mean something along the lines free and justice is only justice if it
of "a state whose power/control is is for all. I would only pledge my
held by citizens and their elected allegiance to this. I pledge no alle-
representatives" or in President giance to any flag or to any nation.
Abraham Lincoln's shorthand "of, I do pledge my allegiance to my fel-
by, for the people." I owe nothing low human beings and to the pur-
here because the republic will take suit of liberty and justice for each
my allegiance even without ask- and every one of them.
ing me. In practically all situations
where the republic is concerned, - Barry Belmont can be reached
consent is assumed rather than at belmont@umich.edu.
6
0
6
q
Matt Nolan, the former Michigan Student
Assembly president - now called Central Stu-
dent Government - who held one of the two
student seats in the former committee, said
that the inability to reach a fair compromise
for student input this time around deserves
an explanation. "Whether you agree with the
regents' decision or not, I do think it is a fair
question to ask the regents why it is different
this time. Explaining that rationale could go a
long way." Nolan is correct; the student body
does deserve anexplanation.
Students should have a tangible voice in
this process. The University recognized this in
2002. However, this year, eight seats have been
given to regents and eight to high-level staff.
Since the regents have decided to change the
makeup of the committee substantially from
the previous search, it should be far from con-
troversial or groundbreaking that another seat
be given to students.
This lack of input is just one instance of the
administration making important decisions
that greatly affect students without consult-
ing the student body. The recent controversial
change to a general-admission policy to the Big
House for football games was done similarly,
without input from the Central Student Gov-
ernment. The move is tremendously unpopular
with students, and a petition on the CSG web-
site garnered 2,600 signatures within 12 hours.
Along with planning forums for student
involvement, the committee is also accepting
public nominations for president at the email
UMich.President@russellreynolds.com.
While students should participate through
these avenues, it's clear these initiatives are
an empty gesture to appease students and
does not give them their due.
Having been denied a seat in the commit-
tee, students must seek other ways of mak-
ing their voice heard. The public forum dates
have now been announced for the search
committee, the first of which is to be held
at the Ann Arbor campus on Sept. 17. At the
forums, students must express disappoint-
ment at not being given adequate represen-
tation along with voicing their opinion. The
president is vital to a school, and students
must care about the selection. Now it's up
to students to pressure the administration
and vocalize their concerns so the next time
around, students will be given the voice they
should always be guaranteed.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, Eli Cahan, Eric Ferguson,
Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis, Maura Levine, Patrick Maillet,
Aarica Marsh, Megan McDonald, Jasmine McNenny, Harsha Nahata,
Adrienne Roberts, Paul Sherman, Sarah Skaluba,
Daniel Wang, Derek Wolfe
Crossing party lines
0
BRAD FINGEROOT jIVIEWPOINT
Change the objective
As Congress and the country observe the
unfolding events in Syria, Americans must
understand the United States's role in the
world. Our nation is a bastion of freedom,
one with a history of promoting the cause
of liberty and self-government both at home
and abroad. Lest we ever forget, America is
a safer place when the world is rid of tyrants
and despots. With this in mind, we must also
have the clear understanding that for Ameri-
can action to justly occur, it must have the
direct interests of the United States and its
allies at the forefront.
Every foreign policy decision by the United
States has a butterfly effect, one that chang-
es the geopolitical landscape all across the
world. This idea highlights the significance
of the inexcusable misstep President Barack
Obama made by using the same semantic
terminology - "red line" - when discuss-
ing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's use
of chemical weapons and Iran's development
of nuclear arms. In standing idly by when we
know to a very high degree of certainty that
Assad's forces used sarin gas, we are sending
the signal to Iran that a "red line" is nothing
more than a bluff.
The conundrum for the United States,
beyond the national fatigue pertaining to mil-
itary intervention efforts, is that regardless of
who prevails, we will be faced with a hostile
government in Syria. Under Assad, Syria is a
terrorist state, one linked and subordinate to
Iran and its Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If Assad
is toppled, however, the chances of moderate
leadership appear dim. There are more than
1,200 rebel groups in Syria, and Secretary of
State John Kerry estimates that one in four of
the rebels are radical jihadists. But while the
radical elements of the resistance may be few
in numbers, groups such as al-Nusra Front,
an al-Qaida associate, are far better orga-
nized, armed and trained than their mod-
erate counterparts. If Assad is toppled, it's
possible, therefore, that the new regime will
be led by extremists from groups with direct
ties to al-Qaida.
Chemical weapons in the hands of either
Assad's regime or the al-Qaida-associated
rebels present a clear and urgent threat to the
United States. By either diplomatic means -
working with Russia and the United Nations
Security Council, or military means, the Unit-
ed States must ensure that chemical weapons
are out of Syria and destroyed. With sarin gas
in the hands of groups hostile to America,
Israel and our allies across the globe, we do
not have the luxury to be complacent. If these
weapons remain in circulation, we are leav-
ing ourselves vulnerable to the next attack
being far closer to home. The thought of a
sarin gas attack in the streets of Jerusalem,
the New York subway system or our nation's
capital is far too horrible to contemplate, but
a salivating idea to those who wish to endan-
ger our freedom and disrupt our way of life.
The ideaofa diplomatic solutionthatmeets
the vital national security interests of the
United States is certainly preferable to com-
mitting military resources to Syria. While it's
too early to tell how serious this possibility is
to becoming a reality, leaders on both sides
of the partisan aisle and in the international
community appear little more than cautious-
ly hopeful. There is significant distance that
both Russia and Assad must move, in terms
of documentation and certification that the
weapons are removed, in order to gain Ameri-
can and international consensus.
In the event that diplomatic negotiations
fail, Obama is requesting Congress give him
the authorization to launch an air assault
against Syria in response to Assad's use of
chemical weapons. His stated objective has
not been to destroy the chemical weapons,
but to punish the regime for its actions. I
would firmly urge members of the U.S. House
of Representatives and Senate to reject this
proposal. Punitive action in Syria, strength-
ening al-Nusra Front and the dangerous
rebels' position, does not serve the inter-
ests or the security of the American people.
Instead, I believe the president and Congress
should agree on a resolution with the sole
military objective of destroying the chemi-
cal weapons that present a clear danger to
the United States and our allies. Our lead-
ers have the responsibility to take decisive
action and meet the challenge of ensuring
a safer America.
Brad Fingeroot is a Busine 3 sophomore.
W hile barbecuing with on the politic
some buddies on a mild we would see
August evening not of basic perso
long ago, I found great discour
myself discuss- never came.
ing the National spent the nex
Security Agency. over the very
"Why should all agree on.
we care about In the w.
government- Edward Sno
sanctioned inter- the NSA's dra
net surveillance?" grams, I susp
my friend asked. JAKE derailed cou
"It's not like you OFFENHARTZ ant summer b
or I have any- a debate that
thing to hide." wrestled with
It was a good question, a difficult doms are wev
question, but one that I felt missed name of secu
the point entirely. And so, about debate unlike
three or four beers deep, I launched opposing side
head-first into an anti-NSA tangent conventional
- one that was admittedly less origi- In my hea
nal opinion and more a regurgita- the construc
tion of what I had seen others in "my tion of a
camp" repeat all summer. Orwellian
What I said - what I believe - is surveillance
that the government's bulk data col- state, but - t
lection of innocent citizens is not those withi
only immoral, it's un-American. earshot -i
Each and every one of us has a right sounded a io
to privacy, and voluntarily forfeiting like overuse
that right by handing out our per- conservative
sonal information to sites such as vitriol: basele
Facebook is far different than allow- icanism," le
ing unregulated supervision by shad- to deregulate
owy agencies of the government. As hyperbolic dr
we attempt to reconcile ourlong-held The uncurl
ideas of justice with the expansive will have hug
new world of the web, our generation future of ou
carries a responsibility to oversee believe in a i
this negotiation. By idly standing by I'm willing to
as the government implements mas- I could be tot
sive data-mining programs such as be more impo
PRISM, we're allowing a precedent the current
to be set that will almost certainly be security refle
abused in the future. Is this an ex
As my rant came to a close, I government t
awaited the unanimous chorus of surely take e)
support from my five friends at the same excessiv
table. We all read "1984" in high that so many l
school and lean pretty far to the left dent Bush foi
al spectrun
eye-to-eyeo
nal freedom
agement, t
Instead, th
t 30 minute
points I th
ake of wh
wden's rev
agnet surve
ect this sa
ntless other
arbecues. I
most of th
h since 9/11:
willing to gi
rity? What
most other
es aren't s
party lines.
d, I was rail
C-
in
to
in
it
od
:d
n, so surely The answer to that question depends
on this issue on your personal beliefs. But perhaps
n. Yet, to my more urgently, does the question
he approval matter at all?
e six of us I suspect there was a time when
es bickering party identification wasn't a rigid
hought we'd identity, when government think
tanks and vote-garnering cue-giv-
histleblower ers didn't dictate the views of those
'elations of who can't find the time to stay per-
illance pro- petually informed. I also suspect
me rant has that the intense polarization of our
-wise pleas- country isn't only a consequence of
In truth, it's excessively partisan rhetoric, but a
e world has cause of it. To put it in less abstract
: What free- terms, Republican Sen. Rand Paul
ive up in the is so intent on illegalizing abortion
makes this and keeping gays out of the military
s is that the that the notion of agreeing with him
eparated by about anything is completely foreign
to me - this despite the fact that his
ling against push for NSA reform and transpar-
ency is one that I
wholeheartedly
ry issue doesn't agree with.
Call me narrow-
on one side of a minded, quix-
otic or in need of
)litical binary, some Republican
friends - spoiler,
I'm all three of
these things - but
f "un-Amer- holding a stance that may align more
ising calls with the Tea Party than President
rnment and Barack Obama seems almost traitor-
pery slope. ous. As I find myself more at odds
1 of the NSA with Obama by the day, this feel-
ions for the ing of arbitrary loyalty to the often-
I strongly disappointing Democratic Party is a
s though, so major cause for concern.
he idea that Somewhere amid my fervent dis-
. What may taste for the GOP, I managed to for-
ever, is what get that every issue doesn't fit snugly
on national on one side of a political binary. The
artisanship. problem isn't that I couldn't reach a
unregulated consensus with those who share my
vatives will liberal vantage point. The problem
, or is it the is that it doesn't happen more often.
Eve
fit(
PC
ass claims of
ss-than-rou
Big Gove
ead of a slip
bed growth
ge implicat
r country.
ot of things
entertaint
tally wrong
artant, how
discoursec
cts about p
xample of u
that conser
exception to
ve use of th
iberals crit
r only a few
e Patriot Act
icized Presi-
years ago?
- lake Offenhartz can be
reached atljakeoff@umich.edu
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while viewpoints should be
550-850 words. Send the writer's full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
0
I
f