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