Opinion
JENNIFER CALFAS
EDITOR IN CHIEF
AARICA MARSH
and DEREK WOLFE
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LEV FACHER
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
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.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 —Tuesday, January 20, 2015
T
here’s a linguistic problem
one encounters whenever
talking about “terrorism.”
“Terrorism” refers
only
to
violence
done to civilians
for political pur-
poses by non-state
actors. Thus, by definition, the Unit-
ed States, Israel and their allies can
never do terrorism.
But state violence does, as a matter
of fact, terrify people. What’s more,
state actors can and do do violence
on a much larger scale than non-state
actors. But terrifying people and the
scale of the violence doesn’t define
“terrorism.” If they did, the United
States would be the largest terrorist
organization in the world. Because
of the way the English language has
evolved, we can’t call what the state
(United States, Israel, Britain, etc.)
does “terrorism,” even if they ter-
rify more people with violence on a
larger scale than the supposed “ter-
rorists” do. Note the asymmetry:
There’s no specific word for violence
done by state actors. Therefore the
prevalence of the word “terrorism”
in popular political discourse and the
lack of any corresponding term for
violence done by state actors makes
criticizing the “terrorists” relatively
easy while making dissent against
the state extra difficult.
The word “terrorism” implies a
moral difference between these two
types of violence and, by extension,
a moral difference between those
doing the violence. Calling something
“an act of terrorism” automatically
denounces and delegitimizes it. But
when we compare the many instances
of violence done by non-state actors
and state actors, any intrinsic moral
difference between the two breaks
down. Thus we see that the word
“terrorism” and its great popularity
creates the appearance of a moral dif-
ference between the types of violence
and violent actors, concealing the fact
that there is none. While there might
be certain distinctions that truly legit-
imize and delegitimize violence, such
as the purposes and consequences of
the violence, or the scale of the vio-
lence, the distinction between state
actors and non-state actors is not
among them.
Nonetheless, this false moral dis-
tinction endures in many people’s
minds. Why? Does its existence reflect
a natural moral distinction between
violence done by state actors and non-
state actors? If that were true, we’d
expect to see people across time and
space making this distinction, but we
do not. The word “terrorism” itself has
only been in use very recently. So, the
natural moral distinction, if there is
one, must at least exist independent of
the word “terrorism.”
At first glance, the word “commu-
nism” seems to reflect a similar dis-
tinction, but then again, this word has
mostly been associated with enemy
states, so the word “communism”
doesn’t signify the distinction we’re
looking for. Actually, the two words
seem to reflect a similar moral dis-
tinction because both terms signify
an enemy of the United States. Herein
lies the salient difference guiding
many Americans’ moral intuitions on
the matter of legitimate and illegiti-
mate violence: the violence that “we”
do (that is, violence done by the United
States and its allies) is good because
“we” are the ones doing it, whereas the
violence that “they” do (that is, vio-
lence done by the terrorists, commu-
nists and so on) is bad because “they”
are the ones doing it.
The logic of this argument plainly
runs in circles: “We are good because
we do good violence and our violence
is good because we are good, etc. They
are bad because they do bad violence
and their violence is bad because they
are bad, etc.” If “we” want to assert
our moral superiority, we’ll have to
find some better logic.
So why the endurance of this
false moral distinction? Because the
mainstream media and the U.S. gov-
ernment repeatedly reinforce the dis-
tinction in people’s minds every time
they use terms like “terrorism,” “act
of terror” or “terrorist.” Through the
reinforcement of this false moral dis-
tinction, the mainstream media and
the U.S. government regulate the flow
of discourse by manipulating our lan-
guage such that it favors certain con-
clusions over others — e.g., the United
States is good and its enemies (the ter-
rorists) are bad.
In the wake of “terrorist” attacks,
like the recent attack on Charlie
Hebdo, the cry for unity often drowns
out dissenting opinions. Investigat-
ing the meaning of the word “terror-
ism” in the parlance of our times will
therefore understandably offend some
people. Despite our strong, liberal,
democratic desire to always be polite,
this is not sufficient reason to stop ask-
ing these questions.
On the other hand, it would be
heartless as well as intellectually sus-
pect to deny the feelings of those who
are offended. People who feel offend-
ed by such questions and ensuing
arguments probably empathize very
strongly with the victims of these ter-
rorist attacks, and they feel that such
questions and arguments aim to criti-
cize their feelings. And in a way they
are right. We should inquire: Do these
people empathize equally with the
victims of state terrorism and with the
victims of non-state terrorism? If the
answer is no, as I suspect, we should
then ask: By what logic do they dis-
criminate between legitimate and ille-
gitimate victims as well as legitimate
and illegitimate violence?
Some might object, saying that my
argument seeks to uncover hidden
biases, but that my argument itself is
biased — that is, biased in favor of the
so-called “terrorists” or the victims
of state terrorism. And I understand
why it might seem that way. Because
the popular bias in favor of violence
done by state actors and against vio-
lence done by non-state actors is so
pervasive and profound, it will seem
like I’m valuing the lives of the vic-
tims of state violence above the lives
of victims of non-state violence, when
what I’m really doing is equating the
two. By arguing that there’s no intrin-
sic moral difference between violence
done by state actors and non-state
actors, I’m also arguing that there’s
no reason to empathize more with
the victims of state actors than with
the victims of non-state actors. Again,
we could probably find ways to dis-
criminate between legitimate and ille-
gitimate victims as well as legitimate
and illegitimate forms of violence, but
the ways of discriminating implied
by the word “terrorism” would still
be irrelevant.
— Zak Witus can be reached
at zakwitus@umich.edu.
Definitions
Edvinas Berzanskis, Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert,
David Harris, Rachel John, Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble,
Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm,
Matthew Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
I
t’s that time of year when the
snow boots come out, the Can-
ada Goose jackets go on and the
out-of-staters
get
ridiculed for think-
ing they knew what
cold was before they
came to Michigan.
As a Californian, I took and still
take the brunt of this mockery. During
my freshman year, “in-staters” asked
me if I had ever seen snow before.
They asked how cold it gets in my
hometown, Palo Alto, during the win-
ter. They made sure I knew that I had
no idea what I was getting into for the
upcoming months.
I held onto the one piece of infor-
mation that I hoped would give me a
bit of weather street cred: I was from
Northern California. My winters were
not 60 degrees and sunny like in Los
Angeles, they were 40 degrees and
rainy. Unlike my SoCal dorm mates,
I had seen snow, though only when I
drove four hours to Tahoe for a family
skiing trip. I also knew of and already
owned a North Face jacket. I was sure
I wouldn’t be as shocked by winter as
the surfer dudes down the hall.
But was I really prepared for my
first Michigan winter? Of course
not. The boots I had bought in Cali-
fornia were suede, and my feet were
soaked and freezing the first time it
snowed. I walked home from a party
in two-degree weather, only to spend
the night curled in a ball in my dorm,
unable to get warm. The next day I
went out and bought Hunters and a
Patagonia winter jacket.
Michigan cold was like nothing
I had ever experienced: The sting-
ing cold on your face and the way
your ears hurt when you are walk-
ing home at night without a hat. The
instantaneous cough that rises from
your throat when you step out into
the cold air for the first time that day.
The panic you feel when your phone
shuts off because the air is too cold for
the electronics to work. I had never
known that type of cold. The one ben-
efit is that I found the one thing that
will sober me up faster than anything
— cold air without a jacket.
Michigan cold and California cold
are unique in ways beyond the differ-
ence in numerical temperature. Win-
ter is the rainy season in California.
When I came to Michigan and learned
it was colder when the sun was shin-
ing than when it was raining, I was
very disconcerted, and honestly, it still
pisses me off.
I don’t think anyone gets used
to Michigan winters. “In-staters”
complain about the cold just as
much as “out-of-staters”. While
I got taunted with “Why the hell
would you move here?” questions,
they get just as much scorn with
“Shouldn’t you be used to this by
now?” inquiries. We all feel the cold
the same and the seasonal depres-
sion hits all of us when February
comes around.
My answer to the “Why the hell
would you move here?” question has
always been the same. I wanted to
prove I could live somewhere other
than California, and better to do it
when I’m young, drunk and surround-
ed by people my age to “cuddle” for
warmth with than at any other time
in my life.
However, I will always feel like I
didn’t get the full Michigan winter
experience. I missed the only snow
day in 75 years. I skipped the entire
polar vortex because I was study-
ing abroad in sunny Australia. I will
never know what minus-40 degrees
with a minus-10 wind chill feels like.
But I’m not sorry in the slightest. I
picked a really good winter to not be
in Michigan.
I like to humblebrag to my
friends back in California that they
shouldn’t be complaining about a
30-degree New Year’s Eve, because
if it breaks 25 in the middle of Janu-
ary in Michigan, that is considered a
heat wave. The few sunny 36-degree
days we get in the middle of win-
ter — thanks to Ann Arbor’s sense-
less weather changes — give me just
enough hope to make it through the
rest of winter, which usually lasts
until finals week.
I got lured into a false sense of
security my freshman year when
it was 60 and sunny on St. Patrick’s
Day. I thought “two months of hor-
rible weather and then it’s fine by
March 17, I can do that.” But those
snow flurries in April break your
heart just when you think you are
home free for spring.
I really think that some of my
friends deal with worse weather
than we do. Many of my friends
ventured up north to Oregon and
Washington for their college expe-
riences. I would take cold and snow
over 300 days of rain any day. Rain
is dark. Rain is depressing. Rain is
wet and inconvenient.
But this is my first Michigan winter
since sophomore year, and I’m a little
worried that I have forgotten just how
miserable they really can be.
— Jesse Klein can be reached
at jekle@umich.edu.
Preparing for Michigan winter
G
ov. Rick Snyder approved a number of bills concerning
criminal justice Jan. 12, including one that requires DNA
collection of those accused of felonies, including nonviolent
ones, upon arraignment, and another that expands the type of offenses
that can be expunged from a person’s criminal record. Senate Bills 105-
107 were signed with the general intent to decrease overall recidivism.
According to Snyder, the DNA collection bill was specifically designed
to “help identify suspects earlier in the investigation process.” Though
expungement will likely help stimulate economic recovery of past
criminals, the DNA sample collection of all accused is invasive and
violates basic privacy rights of those who are supposed to be “innocent
until proven guilty.”
Before Senate Bill 105 was signed into law,
DNA samples were only taken from suspected
felons in cases of violent crime. Now, this
sampling at the time of arraignment will be
expanded to suspects of nonviolent crime,
including those accused of drug, property
and white-collar offenses. In the event
that a suspect is charged with an offense,
their sample is to be forwarded and kept
for departmental use. Concurrently, the
approval of House Bill 4186 expands the
ability for all persons with one felony change
and two misdemeanors to petition for
expungement five years after their sentence
is completed. Previously, expungement was
only possible for those under 21. The list of
non-expungeable crimes has been expanded
to add felonies including second-degree child
abuse and terrorism offenses.
The new law broadening expungement
ability will help those who have completed
their
criminal
sentencing
recover
economically and avoid the stigma associated
with felonies. According to the Center for
Economic and Policy Research, ex-convicts
are seen as significantly less employable, and
employment losses from the neglect to hire
these individuals lowered the nation’s GDP
between $57 and $65 billion in 2008. Increased
employability will not only benefit the past
offenders themselves, but may also stimulate
the state economy. In addition, those with
expunged offenses may have a better chance at
being approved for housing, which may help to
decrease the significant rates of homelessness
among ex-offenders.
Though collecting DNA samples at the
time of arraignment may be beneficial when
convicting repeat violent offenders, it’s an
utterly unnecessary protocol for those accused
of nonviolent crimes. The Senate Fiscal Agency
estimates that the state collects approximately
3,000 felony suspect DNA samples yearly and
predicts that, with the new law, that amount
may rise to roughly 12,000, an increase that
would not come without a cost. Fingerprints
are already taken upon arrest, so the need for
using additional DNA samples to track repeat
offenders is unclear. More importantly, though
the DNA samples will only be tested after the
accused individual is charged with the offense,
the fact that this personal information is on
the record is a gross violation of privacy and
infringes upon the central tenet of the criminal
justice system; that one is innocent until proven
guilty. Also concerning is the penalty for a
suspect’s refusal to provide the sample. Doing
so would result in a fine of not more than $1,000
or up to one year in jail — an unnecessary
measure.
Snyder’s approval of Senate Bills 105-107
simultaneously benefits certain ex-offenders
while threatening the privacy of those accused
of nonviolent felonies. Ultimately, broadening
expungement after five years for certain
offenses is economically positive for both the
individual and the state. Conversely, mandatory
DNA collection upon arraignment of the
accused violates privacy and the presumption
of innocence, which could lead to premature
decision-making in criminal cases. Together,
the new laws will affect those ending criminal
sentences and those who may not have them,
for better and for worse, respectively.
An invasion of basic rights
FROM THE DAILY
Nolan Loh/Daily
I
love Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. I loved
them on “Saturday Night Live,” I loved
them in “Baby Mama” and I intend to love
them a year from now when
“Sisters” comes out in the-
aters. I would love them if
all they did was stand up on
a stage and read the entirety
of the iTunes Terms and Conditions. They’re
brilliant writers, incredible comedians and
exemplary role models for women working in
male-dominated fields.
I got suckered into watching the Golden
Globes last week in no small part because the
duo was hosting. And it’s my admiration for
these women that made their monologue at the
Golden Globes such a disappointment for me.
On the one hand, they were able to humor-
ously capture the particular difficulties faced
by women in Hollywood, namely the lack of
compelling roles for older women. Of Patricia
Arquette’s performance in “Boyhood,” Poehler
said the film proves that there are still great
roles for women over 40, as long as you get
hired when you’re under 40.”
Fey pointed to the absurdity of praising
men in Hollywood for sitting through hours of
makeup when women — us laypeople included
— are expected to be made up just to be present-
able in public: “It took me three hours today to
prepare for my role as human woman.”
The monologue was entertaining and clever,
filled with humorous but poignant social com-
mentary on gender inequality.
Then there was the rape joke:
“In ‘Into the Woods,’ Cinderella runs from
her prince, Rapunzel is thrown from her tower
for her prince and Sleeping Beauty just thought
that she was getting coffee with Bill Cosby,”
Poehler said.
This was followed by a series of uncom-
fortable Cosby impressions that were shoddy
at best and racist at worst. However, my dis-
comfort with the bit comes from more than
the over-the-top impersonation of a Black
voice by a white person. It comes also from the
reckless insensitivity shown for the victims
of the sexual assaults that are the centerpiece
of this joke. When sexual assaults are so dis-
proportionately committed against women,
A bad joke
SYDNEY
HARTLE
it was absolutely appalling to have
two comedians who showed such
astuteness to sexism making light of
it. You can’t quip about the discrim-
ination faced by women out one side
of your mouth and spit jokes at the
expense of sexual assault victims
out the other.
Arguably, the intended target of
the joke was Bill Cosby and not the
women coming forward to name him
as their assailant. And make no mis-
take, he deserves to be called out for
his behavior. The problem is that com-
paring sexual assault victims to Sleep-
ing Beauty trivializes a serious and
traumatic real-life experience. The
problem is that bumbling impressions
of Bill Cosby that present him as a
clueless moron relieve him of a degree
of accountability for his actions.
The impressions reduced the drug-
ging and assault of women from an
intentional decision to an “Oopsies!”
that renders the victims mere props
rather than human beings who were
deliberately violated.
Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are
smart women. They are skilled
comedians who were definitely
aware that the joke was risky when
they chose to include it in their Gold-
en Globes monologue. The question
is why they did it anyway. I’m aware
that good jokes can be bawdy, off-
color and even downright offensive.
Lewdness is sometimes the price we
pay for biting social commentary,
but the Cosby joke made a carica-
ture of his speech pattern instead
of underlining the atrocity of his
treatment of women. The Bill Cosby
situation absolutely bears further
discussion, but a silly impression
does not strike me in any way as the
correct avenue for doing so.
I think “betrayed” is probably
the most accurate word for what
I’m feeling in the aftermath of that
monologue. I still adore Fey and
Poehler, but I think that a rape joke
is a lot to ignore in the name of blind
admiration. Instead, it’s important
to integrate their poor choices into
my understanding of them as imper-
fect individuals. They still need to be
called out for their mistakes.
— Sydney Hartle can be
reached at hartles@umich.edu.
ZAK
WITUS
JESSE
KLEIN