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 24, 2015
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
W
ith the number of reported sexual assaults rising on college
campuses, gun lobbyists have started suggesting that the
legalization of carrying concealed weapons on college
campuses would make female students safer. This year, lawmakers
in 10 states pushed bills through their legislatures that would allow
concealed carry on their state’s college campuses. While advocates for
this reform argue it is for the benefit of sexual assault survivors, there
seems to be political motivation behind their reasoning. It appears
that the pro-gun lobby is now utilizing the issue of sexual assault to
validate concealed carry. However, this view overlooks the real issues
surrounding sexual assault on college campuses and should absolutely
not be implemented.
Last month, Florida State Rep. Dennis K.
Baxley (R–Ocala) stated, “If you’ve got a person
that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them
carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think
you’re responsible.” This is a strong statement,
as it suggests that the use of violence is more
a “responsibility” of the victim than an issue
of the offender. This solution, advocated by
Baxley, also forces women to be responsible in
stopping sexual assault, as opposed to society
as a whole.
The Florida bill went on to pass out of sub-
committee and is currently on the floor of the
state House of Representatives. In Nevada,
Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R), who is
sponsoring a similar bill in the Nevada House of
Representatives, added to Baxley’s tone, stating
in an interview with The New York Times, “If
these young, hot little girls on campus have
a firearm, I wonder how many men will want
to assault them.” Making the assumption that
these “young, hot little girls” should have to
assume the jobs of the law enforcement officials
is not addressing the rise of sexual assault. It
also isn’t going to decrease the risk of violence
on college campuses.
Additionally, this assumption that the
current problem with sexual assault on college
campuses is merely happenstance of a sexually
charged individual on the streets attacking
a woman is false. What is true, according to
a study published by the U.S. Department of
Justice in 2007, is that 19 percent of women
in college were survivors of sexual assault or
an attempted sexual assault at some point in
their college career. Furthermore, about 85 to
90 percent of these assaults occur by someone
known to the victim.
John Foubert, president of One in Four, an
educational service on college sexual assault
and professor at Oklahoma State University,
offered a different voice to the debate. Foubert,
a professor in a state with a college concealed
carry bill currently under review, contends
that guns can’t solve the problem: “If you have
a rape situation, usually it starts with some
sort of consensual behavior, and by the time it
switches to nonconsensual, it would be nearly
impossible to run for a gun.”
This is not a far-fetched theory, considering
that the rate at which survivors of sexual
assault or attempted sexual assault knew their
assailant. The DOJ study found that, when
described by the survivors, the assailant was
most commonly a classmate, friend, boyfriend,
ex-boyfriend or acquaintance. These incidents
are reported to have occurred mainly in two
locations: 60 percent of the time in one of the
two party’s private domains and 10 percent of
the time in a fraternity house. It would be rather
difficult, as a person in danger, to know exactly
when and how to properly defend oneself in
such situations.
There is a complete lack of practical
applicability with these bills, especially in
Michigan. Considering the age to legally carry
a concealed weapon is 21 in the state, and most
of these “hot, young” and “drug and alcohol
abusing” college students that these advocates
of the bill are describing are between the ages
of 18 and 21, it would be illegal under state law
for these individuals to purchase handguns
from licensed dealers.
These bills being pushed appear to be either
flawed attempts to fix the problem of sexual
assault on college campuses or a rather thinly
veiled facade for what these lobbyists are really
promoting: legalizing weapon carrying. The
issue of sexual assault on college campuses is
one that is both sensitive in nature and hotly
debated in society. For legislation to be debated
and passed that puts the onus on the women
who attend these institutions glosses over the
real issues that exist in society. Everything
should be done to drastically reduce the rate
of sexual assault on college campuses in the
United States, but concealed carry on campus is
not the answer we so desperately need.
F
or the last two years, there
has been something greatly
bothering me about my col-
lege education. As
excited as I am to
feel the pride in
holding a college
degree in my hands,
I have to admit
some apprehension
over a few words
that will appear on
my diploma: Gerald
R. Ford School of
Public Policy.
On September 8,
1974, President Ger-
ald Ford granted a full pardon to former
President Richard Nixon, one of the
most pernicious criminals in recent his-
tory. Ford was widely castigated across
the country for his decision, with ques-
tions arising about Ford’s motivations,
his competence and the legitimacy of
the Oval Office. Ford made a tough call,
and whether his choice was right or
wrong is highly questionable.
Were one to study public policy
at Michigan, it sure wouldn’t seem
that way.
Today, the Ford School serves as
a permanent memorial to a largely
misunderstood period of history. The
school’s halls are adorned with pho-
tos of Ford’s life, a large portrait of the
former president and commemorative
posters of the school’s renaming and
groundbreaking. According to Paul
Courant, public policy professor and
former director of the Ford School’s
predecessor, the Institute of Public Pol-
icy Studies, there was little resistance
to permanently memorializing Ford
despite his rocky decision-making.
“Almost everybody, by the time we
named the school, had come around to
the view that actually pardoning Nixon
was the right thing to have done,” Prof.
Courant told me. “I didn’t detect any
unhappiness about it within the faculty
or students.”
Books about Ford paint him as a
genuinely decent man committed to
public service, while his own writing
bleeds with a humility that’s hard not
to admire. He would have been the first
to admit that he was not perfect, nor
was his decision-making. But herein
lies the problem with the Ford School:
memorials aren’t there to spark debate
or respect nuance. As Adam Gopnik
writes in The New Yorker, “The memo-
rials’ end is to sacralize their subject in
a way that shames anyone who contests
its centrality — to build in a way that
makes contention come at an extreme-
ly high price in social discomfort and
disapproval.”
For Gerald Ford, the unquestioned
orthodoxy is simple. As Susan Collins,
Dean of the Public Policy School, told
me, “There is increasingly a view in ret-
rospect that he did the right thing even
among people who strongly disagreed
with him … the idea (was) that in order
to heal the country, it was more impor-
tant to move forward and focus on other
topics instead of focusing on the trav-
esty of what Richard Nixon had done.”
There is little doubt that Ford
made the pardon with good inten-
tions, but it being the “right thing
to do” is far from settled. Looking
at the way executive immunity has
grown since Watergate, it becomes
increasingly difficult to view Ford’s
decision positively. As Glenn Green-
wald argues in his book “With Lib-
erty and Justice for Some,” the same
reasoning behind the Nixon pardon
has excused endless high-level law
breaking from Reagan to Clinton to
Bush to Obama.
Ford created a precedent where the
prosecution of executive officials would
“tear the country apart.” This argument
that America needs to “look forward
and not backward” and avoid “reopen-
ing old wounds” is exactly why Bush-
era officials have never been prosecuted
for torture and warrantless spying.
In both situations, the assumption is
that the American people are too sensi-
tive or too vindictive to see presidents
treated like any other criminal. I don’t
know what these platitudes about the
country being “torn apart” are sup-
posed to mean, but if America can sur-
vive a civil war and the assassination of
presidents, it can survive Richard Nixon
and Dick Cheney facing trial. Ford let
Nixon go with the stroke of his pen, but
his legacy is the reason Cheney and oth-
ers will never face justice. In 1974, when
asked about writing an executive code
of ethics, Ford responded, “The code of
ethics that will be followed will be the
example that I set.”
To be fair, Gerald Ford is not the only
questionable person memorialized at
Michigan. Sam Zell filled the Chicago
Tribune’s leadership with philander-
ing drunks who drove the company
to bankruptcy, while Alfred Taubman
is a convicted felon. Weill Hall, the
Ford School’s home, as well as the
Joan and Sanford Weill Deanship, are
both named in honor of an investment
banker dubbed “The Shatterer of Glass-
Steagall.” This phenomenon is not lim-
ited to Michigan; plenty of campuses
are dotted with schools, buildings and
programs named for powerful people
with shady pasts.
To their credit, both Collins and
Courant welcomed critical inquiry into
Ford’s legacy. Dean Collins expressed
her desire to hold events debating the
Ford presidency, especially the pardon
of Nixon, and wished I had voiced my
concerns sooner. While I appreciate the
open-mindedness, an occasional panel
discussion will be long outlasted and
overshadowed by the sheer size and per-
manence of the Ford School itself.
The public policy school is not about
to change its name, nor are any of these
other institutions in question. But
shouldn’t there be more debate on who
deserves to have their name adorn our
University? Shouldn’t policy schools
scrutinize presidents, not deify them?
Shouldn’t we be worried about dis-
torting history?
The day that Ford was to pardon
Nixon, Jerald terHorst, Ford’s press sec-
retary and longtime friend, handed in his
letter of resignation. Writing to the presi-
dent, terHorst said:
“I cannot in good conscience support
your decision to pardon former Presi-
dent Nixon … Try as I can, it is impossible
to conclude that the former President is
more deserving of mercy than persons
of lesser station in life whose offenses
have had far less effect on our national
wellbeing.”
It wouldn’t be much, but along with
the statue and photos of Ford, maybe
terHorst’s letter deserves a place in my
school, too.
—James Brennan can be
reached at jmbthree@umich.edu
Keep guns off campus
Concealed weapons are not the solution to sexual assault
The names they carry
JAMES
BRENNAN
The negative that prevails
T
he First Amendment has
offered us many liberties to
express our voices without
hindrance.
How-
ever, with such a
broad
freedom,
we cannot expect
that everyone will
always
use
this
privilege
in
the
wisest way. There
are instances each
day when we may
—
purposely
or
unintentionally
— abuse our free
speech rights for ill
over advantage.
Our words are precise, and they
have power to inflict pain. Howev-
er, this isn’t something wrong with
the amendment or wrong with free
presses that do not censor voices.
Rather, the culprit lies in the indi-
viduals who present the harmful or
offensive perspectives.
Especially with the onset of the
digital age, the reader experience
has extended to deeper dimen-
sions. Though we’re separated by
individual screens, the Internet has
created an expansive community
of consumers. Before online com-
menting culture, article authors
and media creators remained elu-
sive and aloof from us as consumers.
Now, we’re able to interact directly
with content producers and share
our thoughts with fellow viewers
— and more than ever before, we
have a larger, diversified platform
to megaphone our pedestrian ideas.
Our voices are louder and more free
than ever.
As a result, “new media” has
emerged, where we can respond
to articles and share our thoughts
through personal channels, like
blogs or “vlogs” (video-logs). The
boundaries between content cre-
ator and consumer have blurred —
anyone, regardless of education or
other demographics, can add input.
The inclusion of more voices may
illuminate some especially impor-
tant insight from common citizens,
but it also comes with the potential
for creators to offend parties and
receive harsh opposition. In fact,
when our bodies are physically hid-
den behind a screen and our identi-
ties can be obscured by an online
pseudonym, we may feel more auda-
cious and sound more brash than we
would in real life.
This all being said, as both con-
tent creator and consumer now, we
have developed a natural tendency
to focus on the negative. In the vast
body of opinions on the World Wide
Web, in the wealth of knowledge
on the online abyss — we somehow
manage to selectively identify the
offensive and the harmful — and
focus our energies there.
On the one hand, from the con-
tent creator lens — personally, as
both a student journalist and artist
— upon initial reaction, one nega-
tive comment on my work overshad-
ows the array of other comments I
may receive.
On the other hand, as a member
of the Internet consumer commu-
nity, when I scroll through social
media feeds or skim newspaper
front pages, I subconsciously click
on headlines of devastation or
revulsion first. I’m subconsciously
drawn to stories of turmoil and
corruption, or opinions that strike
a chord of alarm or even disgust.
Articles are stories: to us as readers,
they are nothing important or inter-
esting if not defined by conflict. We
grow too quickly bored by a lack of
disruption in the news.
The media represents our best
understanding of the norm — and
because the news more often than
not reports the negative, our under-
standing of “normal” has skewed
toward pejorative. In the most
prominent examples: from an out-
of-state perspective, Detroit is often
portrayed in terms of crime and
economic deterioration; to western-
ers uninformed on the Middle East,
the area as a whole is generalized
with strife and turmoil; the preva-
lence of female victimization sto-
ries have elevated male perpetrator
statistics to feel higher than they
actually are.
In these instances, when a mar-
ginal representation of the whole
picture dominates our understand-
ings, we fail to see the nuanced
dimensions behind each subject.
We fail to see the improving parts
of Detroit vibrant with history and
culture; we may categorize one
race or religion hatefully based on
atrocities committed by a fraction
of them; we may oversimplify a gen-
der based on exaggerated fears of
all men. When we are immersed in
news of global warfare and national
corruption — with news of mun-
dane communal peace or human
righteousness rarely mentioned on
national scales — we become accus-
tomed to remembering and paying
attention to the negative most.
In some inexplicably wicked
way, we are excited by the negative
(widespread danger, the ignorance
or deviance of others) gives us emo-
tional stimulation to incite discus-
sion and collective effect. However,
we have to remember that they’re
not representative of the whole.
Personally, as a writer, it’s impor-
tant to remember that one piece of
negativity isn’t representative of all
the consumers of my content.
We need to stop allowing the
negative to prevail, or else we will
only impart this affinity for negativ-
ity onto others, ingraining it deeper
into our peers and our future gen-
erations just as it has been instilled
in us. We’re a new media culture
with a vast interactive community.
It has become our duty to do more
than consume idly now that we have
the ability to both create and com-
ment. We’ve been granted immense
liberties to speak as freely as we
wish. So in return, we must use
our free speech privileges to share
articles of positivity and poignancy
just as much as articles we comment
hate upon.
To form a complete and balanced
view of any subject, the negative
information presented must be cou-
pled with the good. We must read
enlightening responses along with
the articles we spite. Along with
disagreement we input on articles
we dislike, we must also respond
with positive comments on opinions
we find insightful.
—Karen Hua can be reached
at khua@umich.edu
KAREN
HUA
BEN KELLER | VIEWPOINT
Keeping church and state separate
For as long as there have been inhabitants of
the American continent, multiple sets of religious
and moral codes have determined how its popu-
lations lived. Whether it be the nature-based
religions of Native Americans or the “newer”
faith of Christianity brought by European set-
tlers, institutions of distinct beliefs have guided
the vast majority of ethnic and social groups that
have existed on this land. There’s little doubt that
religion has had a heavy influence on our society,
and its role in the formation of the United States
is strikingly clear in our founding documents.
However, there’s considerable debate regarding
religion’s role in our government, and how law-
makers have, and continue to, inject their faiths
into policy matters.
A recent piece in The New York Times by
columnist Frank Bruni highlights attempts by
politicians, particularly conservatives, to justify
their agendas with reference to personal faith.
These instances aren’t reserved for those on
the right wing, either. As Bruni points out,
during the 2008 presidential campaign, then-
Senator Barack Obama pointed to his faith for
the reason he did not support the legality of
same-sex marriages.
The fact is, since even the days before the
American Revolution until the present, govern-
ment officials have defended actions and pro-
posed new laws based off of the religious code
that they adhere to. This isn’t the correct path to
sound administration. Rather, this form of gov-
erning results in baseless legislation lacking any
real-world evidence and misconstrues the very
nature of our founding.
I want to state that I am a religious man,
myself. I do not harbor any ill will toward any
set of faiths nor those who openly practice
their beliefs. However, as a citizen, I do not
subscribe to blurring the boundaries of religion
and government.
Were our founders religious? Yes. Did they take
certain values of their religion — equality, justice,
freedom — and incorporate them into our gov-
ernment? Yes. Did they envision a nation where
the government enacted laws with the guidance
and approval of a higher being? Unequivocally no.
James Madison, a key contributor to some of the
most important decisions establishing the United
States as a nation, was once quoted saying, “the
civil government functions with complete suc-
cess by the total separation of the Church from
the State.”
It should come as no surprise that the First
Amendment accentuates this fact: the state can-
not establish a religion, but it cannot impede the
free exercise of one, either. In his piece, Bruni
quotes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
as saying America had abandoned its identity as
a “God-centered nation that understands that
our laws do not come from man, they come from
God.” While Mr. Huckabee may truly believe
that, he seems to be forgetting that even our
founders did not believe in divinely inspired leg-
islation. Moreover, it is important to note that not
all of our current lawmakers believe in Christi-
anity like Mr. Huckabee, let alone God.
When we legislate based on morality, issues
get distorted to focusing on aspects of life that
one can debate ad nauseam. For instance, if I
propose a law to you and base it off of a religious
teaching in which you don’t believe, then there
is no room for debate or compromise.
There is no historical precedent to
cite, no facts or figures to corrobo-
rate that type of theory. Religious
beliefs can’t be proven with secular
evidence — that is the point of faith.
However, this type of argument is
continually used for issues ranging
from marijuana legalization to gay
marriage to abortion.
I believe in God. I do not believe
in a government derived from God.
Seldom is there a place for religion in
politics, and to try and use religion
to advocate for particular measures
politicizes a part of life that should
remain above the jungle that is the
current state of American politics. As
Mr. Bruni states so accurately, “Politi-
cians’ religions … should be a source of
their strength and of their empathy,
not of their agendas.” I love practicing
my faith, and I love participating in
my government. Let’s keep those two
actions separate.
Ben Keller is an LSA freshman.
FROM THE DAILY