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, February 10, 2015

T

wo weeks ago, Jonathan 
Chait, an alumnus of the Uni-
versity and The Michigan 

Daily, published a 
much-clicked essay 
on political correct-
ness, his pen intent-
ly focused on the 
popular topic of free 
speech on campus. 
Chait’s piece argues 
that the left has 
employed a strategy 
of censorship, espe-
cially within aca-
demia and social 
media, stifling free 
expression in order to win debates 
about race, gender and sexuality. 
But what Chait misses, and what so 
many commentators and politicians 
miss talking about this issue, is the 
ability for free speech to stifle other 
free speech — an Outrage/Silence 
Roundabout. Here’s how it works:

One person, person one, starts 

talking. Another person, person 
two, interprets something about 
their argument as so preposterous 
and hurtful that person two feels 
offended. Person two can respond 
in a number of ways: they can label 
the idea as offensive and attack the 
other person’s argument, they can 
label the idea as offensive and out-
right dismiss it without explanation, 
or they can say nothing at all.

In Chait’s article, the typical 

response from person two is choos-
ing to publicly take offense without 
explanation. The events play out 
 

as such:

Person one denies their bigotry 

and asks for explanation. Person 
two could explain, but instead they 
push the outrage further, claim-
ing it isn’t their responsibility to 
educate someone on how to not be 
an asshole. Moreover, person two 
argues the fact that person one can’t 
see the ignorance behind what they 
say shows just how bigoted they 
are. Person one, feeling personally 
attacked and otherwise bewildered, 
shuts down and learns nothing.

That scenario is a nightmare for 

the future of education. However, 
Chait hugely ignores the other, far 
worse scenario that often plays out:

Person one says something that 

person two finds as deeply offensive, 
and person two — in fear of being 

called too sensitive or having their 
identity attacked — says nothing.

This scenario and others like it 

have driven a great deal of “P.C. 
policing” at the University, from 
the adoption of a Race and Ethnic-
ity requirement to the #BBUM cam-
paign. This is all an attempt to grow, 
not stifle, free speech and promote 
intellectual growth. None of us are 
entitled to feel comfortable at all 
times, and being educated requires 
us to even avoid comfort. But there 
is a difference between comfort and 
what has come to be called “safety.”

Creating a “safe space” (terminol-

ogy I personally loathe to no end) is 
nothing more than setting ground 
rules for conversation and debate, 
largely to avoid the Outrage/Silence 
Roundabout. The typical rules of 
a safe space are far from oppres-
sive: speak for yourself and not oth-
ers; attack ideas, not people; don’t 
over-generalize. This requires a 
great deal of patience for everyone 
involved, and different spaces have 
different focuses and hence, dif-
ferent rules. No one can seriously 
expect the world at large to ever 
become one giant safe space, and 
screaming accusations of threats to 
one’s “safety” are rarely construc-
tive if missing an explanation.

Ironically, Chait is calling for 

exactly the same thing he is attack-
ing: the adoption of ground rules 
for how we debate, so that no one 
feels silenced — in his case, non-left 
wingers. I would agree with Chait 
that zealous outrage is, if anything, 
stifling toward the free exchange of 
ideas that is necessary for education.

Unfortunately, this rather simple 

idea finds itself muddled in Chait’s 
equating of political correctness 
with flat-out oppression of demo-
cratic free speech. Chait ends his 
article with a gushing review of 
non-left wing American liberalism, 
whose “glory rests in its confidence 
in the ultimate power of reason, not 
coercion, to triumph.”

Aaron Sorkin would be proud, 

but I have a feeling most historians 
would disagree.

Coercion has in fact been the 

driving force behind most of Amer-
ica’s great leaps forward when it 
comes to race. Slavery saw its end 
thanks to the sword, not the pen. 
Roosevelt didn’t desegregate mili-

tary contracting because he loved 
racial equality, but because A. Philip 
Randolph threatened a massive, 
crippling march on Washington, 
D.C. The Supreme Court may have 
been convinced of school desegrega-
tion, but the South certainly wasn’t. 
Perhaps Jonathan Chait’s memory 
failed him, but the Freedom Rid-
ers, the Little Rock Nine and Vivian 
Malone didn’t win an argument — 
they were surrounded by soldiers.

Chait wants people to fight for 

justice by creating agreement with 
strong argument and reason. But 
what happens when the people who 
need to be convinced are unreason-
able? The movement for political cor-
rectness has no doubt overreached 
at times, but quite often the anger of 
left-wing groups is fueled by liberal 
apathy or resistance to progress. 
Michigan is no stranger to this phe-
nomenon, as Chait detailed in a 2001 
American Prospect article.

During the late 1980s, Chait 

wrote, left-wing groups — most 
notably 
the 
United 
Coalition 

Against Racism — controlled Mich-
igan’s campus. The left-controlled 
student government pushed the 
school to adopt an unconstitutional 
speech code and even invalidated 
elections when their majority in the 
student assembly was threatened. 
This is the kind of blind, unrea-
sonable climate colleges want to 
avoid, and it led to a large conser-
vative backlash. Michigan’s cam-
pus is in a far better position now, 
but it is because, not in spite, of the 
demands of the left wing.

While the speech code was an 

abysmal failure, the late 1980s and the 
1990s saw the creation of the Race and 
Ethnicity requirement and the Pro-
gram on Intergroup Relations. It also 
cemented a legacy of anti-racism at 
Michigan, one that continues to this 
day. There are occasional missteps and 
overreaches — some much worse than 
others — but left-wing demands that 
began in the ‘60s have consistently 
driven colleges to new heights of inclu-
sion and scholarship. Chait and others 
may be living in fear of “P.C. culture” 
ruining free speech, but that same cul-
ture is to thank for countless students 
having any kind of voice at all.

— James Brennan can be reached 

at jmbthree@umich.edu.

JAMES
BRENNAN

Responding to a misguided alum

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, 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

M

easles is back. The much-pub-
licized storyline drips of the 
ironic: the outbreak began at 

Disneyland in Anaheim, 
California 
in 
Decem-

ber, yet it was an entirely 
 

preventable outbreak.

When John Enders began 

his investigation of measles 
in 1953, the disease infected 
some four million children 
per year. 50,000 were hospi-
talized annually. According 
to a biography published by 
The Royal Society, Enders 
hardly came from a calami-
tous background.

Born in 1897 in West Hartford, Connecti-

cut, with a successful banker for a father, 
he attended private boarding school and 
then Yale. An English major early on, and a 
failed real estate investor later, he was finally 
exposed to the laboratory under the influence 
of René Dubos. Eventually earning a Ph.D. 
with a concentration in microbiology, he 
began much of his work with vaccination dur-
ing World War II. His “unceasing insistence 
on truth … (and) his sense of wonder … at the 
great mystery that exists and surrounds all 
of God’s creation” led to much success. After 
earning a Nobel Prize for his discoveries that 
facilitated the development of the Salk vac-
cine, Enders refocused on “the rash diseases 
of childhood.”

By the early 1960s, he cultured the proto-

type Edmonston strain used in the first inoc-
ulations. The measles vaccine cocktail was 
introduced in 1963. With its contemporary 
permutation deemed “MMR,” (effective for 
measles, mumps and rubella) the vaccine has 
effectively eliminated the single most infec-
tious disease on the face of the Earth since. 
In 2000, the disease was considered eradi-
cated from the United States. The vaccine is 
a miracle of modern science. Enders is esti-
mated to have saved 113 million lives since 
its introduction.

Back to Disneyland: it seems insidiously 

suitable that only in such a fantasy land would 
parents ignore scientific reality in favor of fore-
boding oldwives tales. One disproven, “fraud-
ulent” study in particular continues to fuel the 

fire of anti-vaccination movements. Autism is 
the malicious antagonist of a paper published 
(and later rescinded) from prestigious medi-
cal journal The Lancet. The novelist, one Dr. 
Andrew Wakefield, has since been banned 
from the profession for a “callous disregard” 
for children participating in his research stud-
ies, as well as his having “brought the medical 
profession into disrepute.”

Yet, the implications of his sensational fic-

tion endure. Anecdotes, such as that of for-
mer Playgirl and anti-vaccine activist Jenny 
McCarthy, stoke the emotional flames inciner-
ating the medical rationality of parents every-
where. Such scientific negligence disrupts 
public health by opening holes in the herd 
immunity of the population. In other words, it 
leads to a snowball effect. That’s how, in two 
years, measles cases jump 13 times.

The outbreaks have led to much polar-

ization in the political arena. A conflict of 
free will versus governmental mandate has 
erupted. Perhaps the most concerning is 
the passivism of the GOP response. Political 
agendas convolute what is a tremendously 
clear issue here: vaccinate your kids. Plat-
forms, it seems, take precedence. Arguments 
over the aisle put children’s lives at risks. 
Brainwashing via waxing poetic over consti-
tutional rights is as much a contagion as the 
virus itself.

No. To me, there is no debate, nor confu-

sion: medical realities and the preservation 
of human wellbeing, as based in scientific 
fact, should not be perverted into a philo-
sophical, partisan, “patriotic” stalemate. 
It is myopic and malignant, uninformed 
and irresponsible.

Legislatively, Congress ought to take 

action on this. Exemption systems need to 
be overhauled. School districts must enforce 
vaccination requirements. Simple.

A broader point worth making here is this: 

remain wary of the floating heads. As future 
colleagues, neighbors and parents, we ought 
to stay educated on fact over fantasy. Use your 
freedom to make the obvious, uncomplicated, 
correct decisions. Sometimes that can be a 
matter of life and death.

— Eli Cahan can be reached 

at emcahan@umich.edu.

Vexation and vaccination

ELI
CAHAN

R

ecently, outbreaks of measles — a disease which was 
formerly classified as eradicated — have emerged in areas 
throughout the country, including Grand Traverse and 

Leelanau counties in Michigan. The resurgence of preventable 
diseases, like measles and pertussis, corresponds with a disturbing 
trend in which an increasing number of individuals are refraining 
from vaccinations for themselves and their children. Cases of 
measles are now beginning to infiltrate college campuses with 
occurrences of the disease reported at institutions, such as Bard 
College, Moorpark College and California State University, Channel 
Islands. The recent rise of measles, along with other diseases, has 
prompted considerable concern and stresses a dire need for the 
University and the state to re-evaluate and reform their current 
vaccination policies.

In reaction to the outbreaks, the state has 

made some strides to protect public health. 
Instituted by the Michigan Department 
of Community Health, a new policy that 
commenced on Jan. 1 mandates that parents 
who wish to refrain from getting their 
children vaccinated for “philosophical or 
religious reasons” are now required to obtain 
certified waivers from their local health 
department. According to Jennifer Smith, a 
spokeswoman for the Michigan Department 
of Community Health, the institution of this 
provision “will help ensure that those who 
may choose to sign the waiver have accurate 
information 
and 
education” 
regarding 

immunization measures.

Though the state has made some progress, 

Michigan continues to possess a high vaccine 
exemption rate. Vaccination policies on the 
state level contribute to the creation of more 
lenient standards at institutions of higher 
education. The University doesn’t require 
the general student population — with the 
exception of those enrolled in the Medical 
School — to be vaccinated before enrolling, nor 
does it require an accurate record of a student’s 
immunization history. University Health 
Services notifies students of recommended 
immunizations and requests students submit 
their immunization history before starting 
classes. However, no consequences exist for 
those who don’t comply. Similar policies are 
in effect at Michigan State University, but 
all students are, at least, required to submit 
 

their vaccination record.

While the University should not immediately 

mandate vaccinations for the student body, it 
should move in that direction. In doing so, a 
more rigorous process needs to be instituted 
to ensure students’ safety as well as their 
individual and religious freedoms. Rather than 
using an opt-in stance toward the University’s 
immunization policy, an alternative opt-out 
procedure should be adopted. Doing so would 
aid in creating procedures that increase the 
number of vaccinated students but still allows 
individuals to opt out for religious reasons.

In addition to policy measures, vaccine 

education efforts must be increased to combat 
the reappearance of infectious diseases, such 
as measles and pertussis. The recent decline 
in immunizations can be attributed to an 
anti-vaccine movement fueled by fears and 
myths regarding immunization side effects. 
Subsets of the population express concern that 
vaccines are unnatural or contribute to the 
development of autism, though no evidence 
exists to support these claims. Studies linking 
autism and vaccines were disproven.

The state — as a measure to contain 

the disease — should specifically institute 
education reforms in areas already affected 
by outbreaks. To guard against more 
avoidable outbreaks, factual information 
regarding vaccines should be integrated 
into class curriculum to allow students to 
better understand the preventative measures 
available to them.

I 

am an English major liv-
ing in a hall of future NASA 
engineers, Wall Street inves-

tors and hospital 
presidents. 
It’s 

often intimidating 
to be surrounded 
on a daily basis 
by such talented, 
intelligent 
peers 

— not only as an 
LSA student, but 
an LSA humanities 
major among Engi-
neering, Ross and 
Nursing students.

Just one look at 

your homework already confirms 
that 
whatever 
coding-calculus-

chemical language you’re speaking 
flies right over my head. Although 
I can’t even remotely comprehend 
your work, I can relate to your work-
load struggles as I sit down to write 
papers and read hundreds of pages 
each night. When you bemoan the 
loss of your social lives and the loss 
of the light of day, I get that.

What I don’t understand, how-

ever, is why in your eyes, I will never 
“truly” understand. My work is so 
easy in comparison — I can never 
really be “busy.”

The word “difficult” has become so 

elusive. What exactly does a “tough” 
major entail? According to colloquial 
standards at this University, “hard,” 
by default, equates directly to the 
STEM or business fields — more 
specifically, majors alienated into 
exclusivity in separate University 
schools with lower acceptance rates 
and higher rankings. It is commonly 
known that majors in the fields of 
engineering, medicine, business and 
the like lead to high-stakes, high-sal-
ary careers in the future — and thus, 
they are notoriously assumed to have 
heavier course loads.

I don’t deny the fact that your 

classes are fast-paced, your fields 
rigorous and your homework time-
consuming. I truly admire the dedi-
cation you must put into academics, 
and I have no doubt you are some of 
the most hard-working students at 

this University. So, in my pronounce-
ment of liberal arts, I do not mean 
to denounce STEM field majors. 
However, where does the vehicle for 
comparison come in? How can the 
challenges of any two vastly differ-
ent fields be likened to one another?

The term “difficulty,” in the 

scholarly sense, should mean men-
tal strain and effort. To get a dic-
tionary with it: Merriam-Webster 
defines it vaguely as “something 
that is not easy to do or to deal 
with” — thus, something that 
requires acute intellect, arduous 
toil, demanding devotion. If this is 
the case, as LSA majors, we put in 
the same abundance of hours as any 
engineer, nurse or businessperson. 
Our work all transpires an equiva-
lent degree of difficulty, but just 
for different reasons.

STEM is “flashy” and so highly 

regarded in our society because it 
requires innovation far exceeding 
the mundane. STEM is our fore-
seeable future. The techniques and 
abilities 
engineers, 
economists, 

physicians must use — coding, 
multi-syllabic 
molecular 
terms, 

advanced calculus — are usu-
ally fields most pedestrians (even 
college-educated ones) have never 
dabbled in or even looked at.

However, with reading and writ-

ing — at least in our developed West-
ern world — the majority of people 
begin accumulating this skill from 
age three or four. Communication 
remains a fundamental skill that we 
are all required to master in order to 
survive in society. From a myopic, 
superficial standpoint, the liberal 
arts offer no “innovation” beyond 
anything we all already know. Read-
ing and writing — most of us can do 
that. But coding, calculus, chem-
istry — that jumble of numbers we 
don’t understand — that’s impressive. 
Rocket science is breathtaking to all 
of us who don’t possess that knowl-
edge behind the scenes. We find most 
formidable what we don’t under-
stand — a realm much higher than 
anything we have seen before.

However, there is quite a flaw in 

this idea. Though reading, think-
ing and writing may be the most 
fundamental, universal skills — it 
is the most difficult to master the 
basics. As English, psychology, his-
tory majors, we are the future con-
tent creators of your print, your 
screen and the very mobile devices 
you design. To be able to make read-
ers feel something — to illicit real 
tears, to stimulate love or heart-
break, or resentment in their souls, 
or pity in their hearts — that is an 
ability unlike any other. Words 
and thoughts have the capacity to 
inspire further thoughts — to incite 
revolutionary ideas that provoke 
social action and galvanize global 
progression. This ability to under-
stand human nature, to evoke 
emotion through communication, 
to control human emotion and 
thought, is what we are in training 
to do in college. That is our course-
work where we put all our time and 
effort. And that is powerful.

Again, I do not say this in 

denouncement of your field, but 
rather in admiration for your equal 
but different significance. To com-
pare such diversity would be like 
comparing apples to oranges.

So, the next time I talk about an 

essay I have to write, don’t scoff 
because you think my toil is play in 
comparison to yours. I respect your 
field, your whole-hearted devotion 
and ambition. I’m next to you each 
night when we’re both still in the 
library at 3 a.m. Now please, respect 
the time I must take in order to craft 
an argument that is clear in syntax, 
concise in craft, pleasant to the ear 
— one that entertains readers and 
also moves them with poignancy. 
I’m crafting an argument that prac-
tically proves a point and simulta-
neously speaks eloquently. Writing, 
thinking, analyzing: these are skills 
critical to our society, albeit not in 
the same way that creating the next 
rocket ship, investment corporation 
or cancer medication is.

 
—Karen Hua can be 

reached at khua@umich.edu.

In support of LS&Play

KAREN 
HUA

A protected campus

Vaccine education should be next step for University and state

