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