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