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
4A — Thursday, March 19, 2015
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew
Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
I
have encountered many people
recently who believe the gay (or
more accurately, queer) rights
movement
is
nearing its close.
The U.S. Supreme
Court is ruling on
marriage equality,
and
America
is
statistically
moving
closer
toward
queer
acceptance.
While
this
certainly signals
progress,
we
cannot forget that gay marriage and
a trend toward acceptance doesn’t
signal victory in the movement.
We still see examples of blatant
homophobia.
Recently,
Lil
Wayne
and
Birdman, owner of Cash Money
Records, have feuded regarding Lil
Wayne’s release of “Tha Carter V.”
The rapper has cited feeling like a
prisoner to his recording company,
implying the delays are restricting
his creative freedom.
Regardless
of
whether
Lil
Wayne really is a prisoner, what’s
more noteworthy and problematic
is
Birdman’s
reaction
to
this
criticism. In response, Birdman
has publicly announced that Lil
Wayne is “a homosexual,” that all
music detailing Lil Wayne’s sexual
encounters with women is a façade
to maintain his reputation, and that
Lil Wayne has expressed sexual
and romantic interest in Birdman,
Rick Ross and, in particular, Drake.
Whether or not these accusations
are
true,
they
point
to
the
perpetuation of same-sex attraction
as an undesirable trait that can elicit
shame and embarrassment.
If
Birdman’s
statement
is
true, it shows his disrespect and
disregard for the difficulties and
oppression
that
come
from
a
queer identity, especially when
considering the homophobia in
the hip-hop community. While I
cannot understand the experience
of being queer and a hip-hop artist,
rappers can provide depictions that
certainly provide me perspective
and empathy. For example, Angel
Haze, a queer, female hip-hop artist
who remixed “Same Love,” has
gone on record saying that being
gay in hip-hop is still stigmatized.
Additionally, T-Pain, a straight-
identifying
hip-hop
artist,
has
spoken out about the realities of
homophobia. He also identified that
it’s harder for queer-identifying
artists to feature on songs, saying
that gay-identifying artist Frank
Ocean isn’t welcome in certain
scenarios. “I know (artists) that will
not do a song with Frank Ocean just
because he is gay, but they need him
on the fucking song.”
Given these insights into the com-
munity, I can’t imagine the difficul-
ties of Lil Wayne navigating a queer
identity. Beside the disadvantage
of losing work, he would have to
continuously perpetuate a persona
to maintain credibility. It’s a mask
that he would have to wear proudly,
regardless of how much this defies
his internal desires and passions.
And the heartache of developing
unrequited love for your peers who
never reciprocate must also be excru-
ciating. Developing romantic feel-
ings for your fellow artists and peers,
only for them to continuously and
disgustedly reject you, must strike
a chord in the most painful manner.
It is, without a doubt, not Birdman’s
place to publicize this pain. His abil-
ity to frivolously out an artist dem-
onstrates homophobic undertones at
the least, and full-blown prejudice
against queers at worst.
However,
there’s
also
the
possibility that Lil Wayne doesn’t
have a queer identity, and Birdman
falsified this statement in an attempt
to hurt his label’s artist.
If it is a lie, it’s still a portal into
intense homophobia. Out of every
lie Birdman could use, he landed on
same-sex attraction. This indicates
that he views gay-identifying people
with a heightened level of disdain —
perhaps even as a personification of
evil. It’s not just an insult he could
make up to hurt his fellow recorder,
it’s the insult. The one with the most
poisonous bite, the most painful
sting. That’s unacceptable.
Birdman’s homophobia doesn’t
exist within a vacuum in the hip-
hop community. As I’ve previously
discussed, it’s an example of the
systematic homophobia present in
today’s culture. We see examples
everywhere. Rapper and actor Lord
Jamar used the negative connotation
of the term “queer” to reference
Kanye West wearing a skirt to a
benefit concert. Even Tyler, The
Creator, who openly advocates for
LBGTQ rights, undermines queer-
identifying people by using the term
“faggot” in some of his music.
Homophobia isn’t just a problem
in the hip-hop community. Many
subcultures contain an anti-queer
bias. LGBTQ students in rural areas
report less safety associated with
revealing their identities. Religious
communities frequently utilize their
religious texts as a means to equate
queer with sin. Many queer people
of color also experience increased
homophobia within and outside their
ethnic communities.
These community biases come
together to show that the queer
movement is far from finished.
We’re seemingly moving in the
right direction, but there’s so
much progress left to make besides
legalizing gay marriage. Though
it could be the final homophobic
barrier for those living in accepting
subcultures, many still exist in
communities that are fighting for
equal levels of respect. If Lil Wayne
truly is gay, his sexuality is the
root of a huge scandal and internal
strife. If he’s not, other closeted
and non-closeted artists are. And
many others, particularly those in
homophobic rural, religious and/
or ethnic communities are also
suffering.
What
about
their
lived
experiences?
What
about
the
oppression they face? We must
continue recognizing prejudice so we
can continue crushing it.
— Michael Schramm can be
reached at mschramm@umich.edu.
Recognizing homophobia
MICHAEL
SCHRAMM
When we sing the national anthem, we sing
its closing lines with enthusiasm and bravura,
as though to declare their truth, “O’er the land
of the free, and the home of the brave!” But, the
line is actually written in the form of a ques-
tion: “O’er the land of the free, and the home of
the brave?” And that slight change in inflection
alters the essence of that phrase. These are not
words to be mindlessly recited from memory,
but something upon which to reflect, to con-
stantly ask ourselves: Is this the land of the free
and the home of the brave?
As I read the news and as I live life on this
college campus, I don’t know how deserving we
are of that title, for we have distorted its mean-
ing. I see freedom to damage reputations, to
denounce those who don’t conform. I see brav-
ery only in the masses, when the sheer numbers
can drown out the voices of the minority. We
cling to our ideologies so tightly because we
are unbending in our resolves and our opinions,
unwilling to discuss and to share and to under-
stand. We are free when we want to harm, we
are brave when it is convenient.
Last month, Tom Schweich, a Republican
gubernatorial candidate in Missouri, commit-
ted suicide in the midst of a nasty campaign,
filled with cruelty and bigotry. A radio ad,
spoken in a menacing Frank Underwood-style
voice, announced how the opposition would
“squash him like the little bug that he is …” And
there are reports of a whisper campaign started
to suggest that Schweich, a devout Episcopa-
lian, was Jewish.
Schweich was a loving husband, father of two
and a smart and a capable statesman. In 2014,
Schweich ran unopposed in his reelection bid
for Missouri state auditor because Democrats
were so impressed with his work in office. Why
would his religion be of any importance? Would
it prevent him from carrying out his duties? Is a
Jew less moral or capable than a Christian? Is it
not enough to judge a person by his merits, his
successes, his failures and his character?
The same week Schweich took his life, a Jew-
ish student running for a student government
position at the University of California, Los
Angeles, was asked by a student government
representative if her religion would prevent her
from being an impartial representative of the
school. The University of California, Berkeley
student government just passed a resolution
condemning anti-Semitism because the AEPi
house at the University of California, Davis,
was vandalized with swastikas last month. And
these are just the anti-Semitic incidents. Would
you rather talk about Ferguson? Or perhaps the
shooting of Muslim students at the University
of North Carolina?
This country, this land of the free and home
of the brave, is filled with bigots, racists, sex-
ists, anti-Semites, homophobes — cowards. And
we honor and protect the right to be a bigot, a
racist, a sexist, an anti-Semite, a homophobe,
a coward. I just never would have thought so
many could indulge in such primitive behavior.
This kind of behavior isn’t tolerated in the
world of screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Every
so often, I watch a clip from his film “The
American President” to remind myself of what
America really is, or rather should be: “America
isn’t easy,” states President Andrew Shepherd.
“America is advanced citizenship, you’ve got to
want it bad.”
I imagine a world according to Sorkin, where
people carry themselves with class, ready to
retort with a sharp wit; where harsh realities
are faced directly; where presidents can stand
in front of a camera and say what needs to be
said, unfazed by approval ratings; where the
news moves past sensationalizing and into
delivering grounded, important information to
its viewers.
Because in that world, when someone
states that homosexuality is an abomination,
you recite Exodus 21:7, “When a man sells his
daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male servants do,” followed by Exodus 35:2, “…
Whoever does any work on (the Sabbath) shall
be put to death,” and then you kindly ask that
bigot to at least be consistent with his doctrines.
In that world, when you learn that a female
coworker is being harassed, you storm into the
harasser’s office, question him about integrity
and fire him. In that world, when someone
asks, “Why is America the greatest country in
the world?” you don’t answer with “freedom
and democracy,” but with a rejection of such a
simple notion and instead look at the reality of
the state of the nation, and then you ask what
you can do to make it better. In that world, there
are men and women who stand up for charac-
ter, for values, not because it’s to their benefit,
but because someone has to, because it’s right.
And yes, Sorkin’s world is often flawed; it
can drag at times, it can moralize too much,
its characters, oftentimes women, can be ditzy
and poorly written. But eventually, when that
world finds its footing, it can deliver something
inspiring, something honorable — an idea of
how things could be.
We are so far away from that world. Because
in our world, we stigmatize those who believe
something different from us — we respond
with rumors, with vandalism, with hatred. We
stick our hands into the filth, wrap them in tape
colored red, white and blue and throw boxing
gloves over them. We ask our fellow man to step
into the ring and take the next beating because
he who is not with me is against me.
We choose to look away from the brutal-
ity of it all. We elect officials who perpetuate
secrecy or ignorance or sheer stupidity because
it’s what we know. The cycle continues, and we
wonder why things aren’t getting better.
In the film, Andrew Shepherd continues,
“You want to claim this land as the land of the
free? Then the symbol of your country cannot
just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of
its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag
in protest. Now show me that, defend that, cel-
ebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can
stand up and sing about the land of the free.”
Aaron Sorkin knows that. I believe Tom Sch-
weich knew that.
For so long, we have sung of the land of the
free and the home of the brave; now we need
to live by those words, even when it hurts, even
when the blood boils so hot with rage. Then,
we will become what Sorkin, through Josiah
Bartlett in “The West Wing,” envisions:
“But every time we think we have measured
our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and
we’re reminded that that capacity may well be
limitless. This is a time for American heroes.
We will do what is hard. We will achieve what
is great. This is a time for American heroes and
we reach for the stars.”
I lament that there are no President Shep-
herds or Bartlets, there are no Will McAvoys or
CJ Craigs. Maybe the world is too complicated
for men and women like them. Maybe the very
idea that I have spent over 1,200 words compar-
ing life to a TV show is childish and naïve. But
sometimes we need an ideal to strive toward,
to march boldly with our eyes open and our
heads high. Because if we can achieve that, Tom
Schweich will not have died in vain, Ferguson
will not have erupted for nothing, hatred will
cease to needlessly perpetuate. This is a call not
for change, but for introspection. We need to
embrace what we already know to be true, that
which is sewn into the very fabric of the Ameri-
can flag: that we are free and we are brave, and
we can accomplish so much more.
Jamie Bricoll is an LSA junior
and a Daily arts editor.
Pushing past history
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY | EDITORIAL BOARD VIEWPOINT
Since the introduction of the
new AP U.S. History curriculum in
2012, there has been a fierce wave
of opposition to it. In August 2014,
the Republican National Commit-
tee adopted a resolution stating
that the new APUSH curriculum
is a “radically revisionist view of
(American) history that emphasiz-
es negative aspects of our nation’s
history while omitting or minimiz-
ing positive aspects.”
Many conservative activists and
lawmakers have expressed their
concern about the course, saying
that it focuses too much on the
negative aspects of American his-
tory and that it is “rife with anti-
American biases.” On February 16,
2015, the Oklahoma House Com-
mon Education Committee passed
an amendment to House Bill 1380 in
an 11-to-4 vote that would defund
the College Board’s AP US His-
tory course in its revised form. The
author of the amendment, Rep. Dan
Fisher (R–Okla.), said that “rede-
sign of this new framework trades
an emphasis on America’s founding
principles of constitutional govern-
ment in favor of robust analysis of
gender, racial oppression, class and
ethnicity in the lives of marginal-
ized people.”
Fisher also said the AP course’s
“emphasis of instruction is on
America as a nation of oppressors
and exploiters.” In the amendment,
Fisher lists specific people and doc-
uments — such as Martin Luther
King Jr. and the Bill of Rights —
that he believes should be integral
parts of the AP curriculum. Fisher
argues that great people and impor-
tant documents are being put to the
side and substituted with histori-
cal events that highlight America’s
shortcomings. He’s saying we need
to portray America in a more posi-
tive light.
Despite the fact that Fisher with-
drew the amendment to rewrite
House Bill 1380 shortly after it
passed, due to national criticism,
the conversation is far from over.
The bill had originally passed over-
whelmingly in the aforementioned
Oklahoma House Common Edu-
cation Committee, which speaks
to a widespread belief in the bill’s
principles. In fact, legislators in
states such as Colorado, South
Carolina, North Carolina, Geor-
gia and Texas think the AP course
focuses too much on America’s
“blemishes” and are considering
moves to ban or alter the course.
Similarly, in Kansas, legislators are
moving to ban any course not cre-
ated in-state, which would include
APUSH. In this way, legislators and
members of other political bodies
are attempting to assert more con-
trol over the curriculum and force
schools to teach what they want to
be taught.
While it’s important to highlight
the positive aspects of American
history, I disagree that the new
APUSH curriculum is highlight-
ing negative aspects of history over
more positive aspects. In fact, I
believe we are still struggling to
accept the dark moments in our
past that continue to affect our
future. Too often, we attempt to
silence parts of history we aren’t
proud of, and when we speak of
them, they’re not discussed as
systemic, long-term issues, but
rather “blemishes.”
I grew up in a very progressive
part of California — the Bay Area
— and went to very liberal schools
in Oakland and San Francisco my
entire life. It was only in my senior
year of high school that I had
learned anything of substance about
the widespread eugenic practices in
America — and especially California
— that weren’t formally outlawed
until 1979.
I agree that we must highlight
important figures such as Martin
Luther King Jr., and we must rec-
ognize the contributions of the
Founding Fathers. However, we
must equally highlight aspects
of our history such as Japanese
internment and the brutal enslave-
ment of and discrimination against
African Americans. History isn’t
just listing important figures and
documents; it’s about analyzing our
past with a critical eye. We cannot
talk about MLK’s famous speech,
which Fisher wanted to add to the
AP curriculum, without addressing
the fact that racial oppression and
marginalization were the reasons
for it. We cannot discuss the con-
tributions of the Founding Fathers
without pointing out the ways in
which their policies favored white
men of European ancestry. We
cannot replace the darker parts of
history or we risk misinterpret-
ing history entirely and becoming
ignorant to the harsh realities of
America’s past.
The reason APUSH emphasizes
“gender, racial oppression, class
and ethnicity in the lives of mar-
ginalized people,” is that they are
integral parts of American his-
tory we cannot forget. In fact, the
settlement of America, and the
creation of America by Europeans
was largely a product of oppres-
sion and marginalization of vari-
ous racial groups. Today, less than
three percent of Fortune 500 com-
panies are headed by women, Afri-
can American’s are nearly six times
more likely to be incarcerated than
whites and poverty rates among
African Americans and Latinos
are two to three times higher than
among
whites.
Ignoring
these
issues will only exacerbate the ten-
sions between different ethnic and
racial groups in society, and further
marginalize the plights of the many
minorities that make up America.
My intention is not be anti-
American. But by having these hard
discussions, and recognizing the
problems of our past that carry over
to today, we can improve society
moving forward. By pointing out
the mistakes in a country’s history,
we are molding our nation for a bet-
ter future. No country has a perfect
history, and it is crucial that we
acknowledge it.
Anna Polumbo-Levy is an LSA
freshman and Edit Board member.
The more perfect union
JAMIE BIRCOLL | VIEWPOINT
— Central Student Government President Bobby Dishell in a statement on behalf of CSG
regarding the disbanding of Sigma Alpha Mu by its national organization.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
We commend the University
for remaining proactive in its
investigation and for holding
the involved organizations
accountable.”