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.