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 — Friday, March 27, 2015

T

he surprising thing about 
words is that they can be 
completely ineffective. Com-

ing from a person 
who clearly adores 
words — at least 
enough to have her 
own column — this 
is a strange dec-
laration. But it’s 
exactly because I 
think about words 
more 
than 
the 

average 
person 

that I have had this 
epiphany. (Pretty 
sure I’m a word nerd; I’m even happi-
er because that rhymed, if that gives 
any insight into my thinking).

From taking a variety of history, 

literature and even philosophy class-
es (yes, I’m that kind of student, no 
regrets), I’ve learned that most issues 
in society arise because people can-
not create a universal definition for 
a majority of words. In other words, 
everyone has their own interpreta-
tion, or definition, of a word, and 
they’re unlikely to shift their views. 
When it comes to personal defini-
tions and morals, we’re a deeply stub-
born species. And these personal 
definitions create deep divides over 
some of today’s most pressing issues.

Take 
“sustainability,” 
for 

instance. To me, “sustainability” 
and “living sustainably” mean living 
in lasting harmony with the envi-
ronment. We only get one beautiful 
planet to live on, so we should exist 
with it in a way that preserves its 
complex, interconnected systems.

I think I first developed this way 

of thinking when I was a little girl 
and my parents were teaching me 
how to swim. They always told me 
to respect the water. At the time, I 
didn’t really understand it. Honest-
ly, I thought they just meant ‘don’t 
slap the water,’ because that was 

how I respected my little sister. But 
I think this mantra that reverber-
ated through my childhood stayed 
with me. I have grown up with a 
personified view of the environ-
ment which I believe is deserving 
of the same level of respect as my 
teachers and grandparents.

But everyone has their own family 

and background that shapes the way 
they understand words, especially 
hot-button words such as “sustain-
ability.” I’m sure more conservative 
people associate words like “sustain-
ability” and phrases like “environ-
mentally friendly” as loopy, hippie 
terms that just 
cut down strong 
businesses 
and 

inflate the gov-
ernment. 
And 

those conserva-
tive 
extremists 

aren’t 
com-

pletely 
wrong 

— 
supporting 

sustainable liv-
ing would mean 
keeping 
corpo-

rations like ExxonMobil and others 
with no regard for the environment 
in check. However, that doesn’t 
mean environmentalists are just 
drugged-out, lazy hippies hugging 
trees and aren’t actually doing any-
thing to make a difference.

On the flip side, conservatives are 

not all religion-crazed, big-business 
lovers who want to destroy the envi-
ronment. These negative stereotypes 
and generalizations get in the way of 
actual progress and are deeply unsus-
tainable. It’s all right to have your own 
understanding of a word, but the only 
way to move forward on any issue 
is to try and understand the opposi-
tion’s definition of that word and what 
shaped their understanding.

So, I know this is a bit of a 

paradox, but while words can be 

extremely polarizing, people talk-
ing through these words can break 
down the generalizations. To have a 
sustainable life, we also need to have 
sustainable, healthy relationships 
with others, regardless of our diver-
gent ideologies. That goes beyond 
sustainability and into many of the 
world’s current issues. If we’re able 
to see our “opposition” as people just 
like us, we could actually start creat-
ing durable solutions.

One of the benefits of sustain-

ability is that there are so many 
different ways to move toward liv-
ing a sustainable life that people 

from all differ-
ent 
religions 

and 
political 

ideologies 
can 

take part with-
out compromis-
ing their morals. 
Go 
vegetarian, 

or just cut down 
on meat. Michi-
gan Dining has 
implemented 
“Meatless Mon-

days,” because just one vegetarian 
day per week can make a difference. 
Live a zero-waste lifestyle or start 
recycling. Or next time the cashier 
asks if you want a bag, say no thank 
you. How many plastic Walgreens 
bags does one person need anyway? 
Replace your plastic water bottle 
with a metal or glass one (yes, I’m 
still not over this). Repair clothes 
instead of automatically buying 
new ones. Buy locally grown foods. 
Those are just a few examples of 
how to move to a more sustainable 
life. When I learn more, I’ll share 
them. Hopefully I can help expand 
your definition of sustainability. I’m 
sure you can help with mine.

— Eliana Herman can be reached 

at erherman@umich.edu..

Defining sustainability

ELIANA
HERMAN

Reevaluating race

I

t has become clear at this point: We, as a 
society, have become very adept at pun-
ishing a specific kind of racism. From the 

racist University of Okla-
homa Sigma Alpha Epsilon 
chanters to the Donald Ster-
ling disaster about a year 
ago, we have become very 
good at pointing out individ-
ual instances of racism. We 
have also, as a consequence 
of this, come to agree that 
making racial remarks of 
any kind is a bad thing. As 
long as nobody says any-
thing about race, nobody 
can be racist, right?

To be seen as racist — to be outed for mak-

ing an ignorant remark pertaining to race — 
now stands as one of the most shameful labels 
we can carry. For me, it’s a very frustrating 
situation to deal with, because the discussion 
always shifts to talking about whether or not 
certain people are actually racist. We get pub-
lic releases from the SAE chanters, Donald 
Sterling, Paula Deen, etc. 
trying to persuade the 
public that they’re not 
racist at all. And it usually 
devolves into something 
like, “Wait, look at this! 
See this photo of me and 
my friend, (insert name 
of an individual of color)? 
See how not-racist that 
makes me?” Instead of 
turning this unfortunate 
situation into an oppor-
tunity to discuss the ways in which minori-
ties continue to face institutional oppression 
(for example in regards to Greek life on school 
campuses), we instead return attention back to 
the very perpetrators of the heinous situation 
that started the whole fiasco.

For the rest of us who don’t receive this kind 

of public attention for our remarks, the behav-
ior is not all that dissimilar. “Why does every-
thing have to be about race?” we say, always in 
defense of something. We’re scared. We don’t 
want to think of ourselves as bad people, and 
what kind of person is worse than a racist? We 
don’t want to believe that, in our own small 
way, we might be contributing to a larger sys-
tem of oppression that has not been eradicated.

As I have said, we have gotten really good 

at noticing a certain brand of racism and then 
teaching others that as long as we don’t say any-
thing related to race, we can’t possibly be racist. 
The consequence of that is counterproductive. 
Dialogue needs to be happening, much more 
than it is, both on campus and in our larger soci-
ety. And to do this, I think we need to reevalu-
ate the permanence of being marked a racist.

By permanence, I mean this: When some-

one, probably unintentionally, says something 
racially problematic, we tend to see their 
whole being as problematic. They are racist 
instead of they said something racist.

Jay Smooth, the host of a popular New York 

hip-hop radio show, gave a TEDx Hampshire 
College talk about just this: the awkward con-
versations we have when we dare to point out 
someone else’s ignorant remarks. In the talk, 
Smooth said, “I think we should consider … 
how we might take a suggestion that we may 
have said or done something racist and take it in 
stride and not completely freak out and assume 
that the world thinks that I’m a bad person.”

His remedy for how we take criticism was 

a simple analogy, one that better captures the 
mentality we should have regarding racist 
comments: “When you go through your day-
to-day lives, there are all of these mass media 
and social stimuli as well as processes that 
we all have inside our brains that we’re not 
aware of that cause us to build up little pock-
ets of prejudice every day, just like plaque 
develops on our teeth.”

It’s a funny but apt anal-

ogy, because it means “rac-
ism” 
is 
something 
that 

needs to be “cleaned” on 
a daily, regular basis. It’s 
something that needs to be 
dealt with in a very direct 
and attentive way. “I have 
something stuck in my 
teeth?” Smooth goes on to 
elaborate. “But I’m a clean 
person!” He shows us how 
ridiculous it sounds to take 

dental hygiene personally the way we might 
take critiques of our comments personally.

We’re “socially hygienic” not because that’s 

who we are, but because that’s what we active-
ly practice. Of course, I should add that by 
choosing not to “maintain” our social aware-
ness regarding race, we let our biases and prej-
udices take a more permanent, damaging turn. 
If left unchecked, they can fester and rot until 
we’re left with something irreversible.

Another final point I want to make is that 

being more socially conscious of race is an 
important step we should take as a school and 
society, but it’s not the final, all-problems-
solved step, not when institutional racism 
continues to hinder people of color regardless 
of how well meaning the vast majority of us 
may be. However, our improved “hygiene” can 
allow us to be more open and willing to listen 
to others’ experiences and critiques, thereby 
opening up the opportunity to shift our insti-
tutional practices on a large scale.

— Jenny Wang can be reached 

at wjenny@umich.edu.

JENNY
WANG

Arabs who? Muslims who? They are born 

and raised here? Can they even call them-
selves Americans? You may have asked ques-
tions like this and been surprised to learn 
about Arab and Muslim American communi-
ties across the nation. Although Muslim and 
Arab are often used synonymously, the terms 
are distinct. The first identity is religious 
and the second is ethnic. The media — what 
is supposed to be our most trusted source of 
information — regularly portrays these com-
munities as one and the same. However, the 
truth is far from that. American Muslims are 
racially and ethnically diverse and can be 
Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab and any 
other race represented on this planet. Also, 
Arab Americans are religiously diverse, and a 
great number are Christians.

On top of not understanding who Arab 

and Muslim Americans are, the normalized 
hate and discrimination against these com-
munities has reached new heights, becom-
ing consistently more aggressive and blatant. 
Three Muslim American college students 
were shot dead in Chapel Hill, N.C.; a Mus-
lim family was physically assaulted while 
grocery shopping in Dearborn; and a mosque 
in Houston was the target of arson — to list 
just a few instances of hate and violence in 
 

recent weeks.

We, as the University community, must 

actively engage in constructive conversa-
tions that will produce tangible results and 

challenge the hostility toward Arab and Mus-
lim Americans. The campaign to TAKE ON 
HATE is a national movement that strives 
to address our country’s growing miscon-
ceptions and discrimination toward Arab 
and Muslim American communities. The 
campaign focuses its efforts on building the 
capacity of these communities, correcting 
cultural misconceptions through public edu-
cation and working with policy makers to 
promote change.

TAKE ON HATE is holding a community 

conversation right here on the University’s 
campus. The aim of the conversation is to 
build greater understanding of and discover 
solutions for the current situation these com-
munities face. Together, we can create solu-
tions to challenge the status quo within our 
communities and build bridges across diverse 
communities. The conversation will include 
a breakout session in which participants 
can brainstorm among small groups of their 
peers, before sharing with the larger group.

Your input will be crucial in influencing 

TAKE ON HATE’s national initiatives. This 
is your chance to connect, learn and share on 
the measures we, as a connected society, can 
take to end the hate. Join us from 6 p.m. to 8 
p.m. on April 2 at the Michigan League in the 
Michigan Room. See you all there!

Rihan Issa is a graduate student 

in the School of Social Work.

RIHAN ISSA | VIEWPOINT
What can we do to TAKE ON HATE?

Women’s participation in world 

politics has come a long way since 
the post-war, civil and human rights 
movements in the 1960s.

Speaking candidly, anyone with 

the literacy and desire to read a 
newspaper can blatantly see that 
statement is false.

The nature of today’s conflict has 

created a world in which trained 
soldiers on battlefields no longer 
make up the most casualties — 
it’s women and children dying on 
the streets. Beyond the fatality of 
armed conflict, in her paper, “The 
Role of Women in Mediation and 
Conflict Resolution,” author Roohia 
S. Klein describes how “rape, sexu-
al slavery, and other forms of sexual 
violence are used as weapons of war 
in international conflicts.”

In 2000, the United Nations 

passed Resolution 1325, which aims 
to better incorporate the perspec-
tives of women in seeking resolu-
tion and prevention of conflict to 
combat sexual violence. The lan-
guage of this document suggests 
that its text is more of a legal rec-
ommendation rather than an urgent 
call for women’s justice. Resolu-
tion 1325 “urges Member States to 
ensure increased representation 
of women at all decision-making 
levels in national, regional and 
international institutions.” What 
does this piece of paper actually 
 

accomplish in its practice, though?

Women’s rights activist Jody 

Williams is looking to address 
the effectiveness of the resolution 
on world conflict. During a guest 
lecture given at the University, 
she discussed the reality of 1325’s 
implementation in the UN. Though 
the document is a good step, 
women are not represented nearly 
as equally with respect to men in 
peace committees and conven-
tions. The argument goes beyond 
political representation to include 
women in the military body of UN 
peacekeepers. If armed peacekeep-
ing operations had a proportionate 
population of females, there would 
be more emphasis placed on the 
treatment and importance of sexual 
violence in conflict zones.

Along with Jody Williams’ cri-

tique of 1325, Klein gives accurate 
downfalls of the resolution in the 
section of her paper, “SCR 1325 Ten 
Years On.” She directs attention to 
the lack of structural changes with-
in UN bodies to accommodate for 
female representatives. The author 
also points out the absence of time 
constraints or quotas and incen-
tives to implement 1325. These 
together add up to a failure to mea-
sure any real-world effects the res-
olution has truly found.

The UN was founded on the 

ideas of common peace and human 

rights across all member states, but 
its actions to achieve those ideas 
are slightly ironic. It’s a loss of the 
integrity within a system that is 
promising so much to populations 
that have already been stripped 
of human rights. While the fact of 
representation is much debated, 
women make up half of the world 
and there are plenty of them sig-
nificantly more capable than many 
male officials elected or hired to 
serve the UN in finding peaceful 
and lasting resolution to conflict.

Nick Bryant of the BBC defends 

the efforts of 1325 with the Secu-
rity Council; female representa-
tives occupy a third of the seats. 
In addition, the UN boasts 31 per-
manent 
female 
representatives. 

Even Bryant can’t argue with sta-
tistics showing the shortcomings 
of 1325, though, as “84 percent of 
the ambassadors at the UN are 
men. There may be more women at 
the table, but they are still heavily 
 

outnumbered.”

The United Nations has made 

positive strides with their resolve 
to include women in policy making. 
However, it’s not enough to bridge 
the gender participation gap in the 
UN’s infrastructure — thereby fall-
ing short of including the female 
voice in world conflicts.

Kirk Acharya is an LSA junior.

KIRK ACHARYA | VIEWPOINT

Include the female voice

E-mail GabriElla at GabsmEy@umich.Edu
GABRIELLA MEYER

Hopefully I can 

help expand 

your definition of 

sustainability.

We’re “socially 

hygienic” not because 
that’s who we are, but 
because that’s what we 

actively practice. 

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

ARE YOU OVERLY OPINIONATED?

HAS A FRIEND EVER TOLD YOU TO START A BLOG? 

DO YOU EXPERIENCE IMMENSE JOY FROM ARGUING? 
Check out The Michigan Daily’s editorial board meetings. Every Monday 

and Wednesday at 6 p.m., the Daily’s opinion staff meets to discuss both 

University and national affairs and write editorials. 

E-mail tothedaily@michigandaily.com to join in the debate. 

