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, April 3, 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 often found myself drawn 
to men of color. In high school, 
a handsome, Black athlete made 

my 
body 
feel 

something that no 
white boy in high 
socks 
had 
ever 

been able to do. 
My attraction to 
him was magnetic 
— and I justified 
it as such to my 
white girlfriends 
who just “weren’t 
into Black guys.” 
Being a student 
at a majority-white high school, I 
shamefully felt the need to justify my 
attraction to a minority student by 
referring to it as “carnal.” It couldn’t 
just be attraction. It couldn’t avoid 
explanation. It had to be because 
my body was heavy with desire, or 
because he was a great guy. It had 
to be because of something, because 
we were different, and because oth-
erwise, to my peers, to this world, it 
wouldn’t make sense.

My oldest sister, a college stu-

dent at the time, proposed a biologi-
cal explanation: “You’re probably 
attracted to Black guys because bio-
logically you want to diversify 
your gene pool for your offspring.” 
Freshly immersed in evolutionary 
anthropology classes, she tended to 
overanalyze situations that required 
no analysis. There was the opposing 
argument that same-race prefer-
ences in sexual relationships actu-
ally benefitted the biological fitness 
of one’s offspring. The latter argu-
ment, the racist argument, was the 
one the majority of our white bodies 
abided by.

As I experienced it, conversations 

on race-based attraction occurred 
all too much. Over cafeteria lunches, 
we talked about hook-ups — ones 
that had happened the weekend 
before, ones that would happen the 
following weekend, ones that we 
wished would happen but never 
would due to the ever-present, very 
unscathed social hierarchy of high 
school. A boy might have said some-
thing like, “There’s no one in school 
that I want to hook up with,” and if 
on the rare occasion someone pro-
posed the option of hooking up with 
a Black girl, he might have said, “I’m 
not attracted to Black girls.” Then, 
directed at the one Black person 
sitting at the table, he might have 
added, “No offense.”

“No offense” was a phrase used 

so often, uttered so reflexively, and 
yet was so overtly offensive. It was 
said with the ingrained belief that no 
matter what came before it, as long 
as it was followed by “no offense,” 
the person saying something objec-
tionable would be absolved. I can’t 
know what it must have felt like to be 
a person of color in that situation, lis-

tening to an ignorant white kid deem 
your whole race unattractive, but I 
can only imagine that it was painful.

I won’t deny the fact that like 

many of my peers, my sexual prefer-
ences have at times been reduced to 
specific racial groups. It’s a deeply 
concerning reality that no matter the 
person, no matter how kind or good-
looking or smart they are, if they fall 
into a certain racial category that has 
been routinely associated with physi-
cal dislike, they’re not then consid-
ered to be the most “viable mate.”

Over Spring Break, my housemates 

and I traveled to Naples, Florida, for 
the week. It’s a small town — expen-
sive, well manicured, brimming with 
rich, old white people. We download-
ed Tinder for the occasion, having 
little intention of utilizing it for its 
intended purpose: a meet-up. One of 
my housemates, my good friend — a 
beautiful Indian woman — swiped 
her fingers across the screen of her 
phone, sifting through the mounds 
of Florida preps who had “just moved 
to Naples, looking for a good time.” 
After a little while and only a few 
matches, she set the phone down. “I 
miss Ann Arbor,” she sighed. “People 
here are so racist.”

It was true. A platform like Tin-

der, a dating app governed by the 
laws of attraction, fosters racism. 
A person’s face comes into focus on 
the screen, and if it’s not the color of 
your liking, you swipe left. No con-
sequences. No one judging you for 
your “inherent” sexual preferences. 
There’s no need to justify why you 
did or didn’t swipe left as it applies 
to race. And this is arguably a more 
concerning form of racism, the kind 
hidden behind a screen, the kind 
that holds no one accountable.

So, here is the pivotal question: 

Is race-based attraction inher-
ent, or is it informed by the racial 
associations that permeate our cul-
ture so deeply? When, during my 
semester spent abroad, I strolled 
the streets of Havana and received 
cat calls that often began with 
hola blanca, “hey white girl,” was 
I in part being targeted due to my 
whiteness? Absolutely, because a 
country so polluted by slavery and 
racial inequality can only construct 
a reality in which a white person, 
the former imperialist, is associat-
ed with superiority. And that is only 
talking about Cuba, not America, 
where racial inequality exists not 
only because of our past history, but 
also because of our present history.

It would absolve us of any social 

responsibility if we denied the 
fact that attraction is informed by 
implicit racial biases, because to do 
so would deny the complex systems 
of racial inequality and racial con-
trol that America has created. For 
instance, our knowledge of the fact 
that the majority of incarcerated 

people in this country are minorities 
does permit us to form a racist asso-
ciation: If you are a person of color, 
you are more likely to be a criminal. 
To deny this association is to deny 
the fact that we are racist because 
of the complicated racially advised 
context in which we live. And to 
deny that is to deny that racism can 
and should be unlearned.

There are arguments suggesting 

that same-race preference is, in fact, 
inherent. It’s thought that we are 
intrinsically attracted to ourselves, 
and that in unfamiliar situations, 
we gravitate toward those who look 
the same as us. This is corroborated 
by the clumps of people seen walk-
ing together on campus, categorized 
by their skin color, and occasionally 
sporting their token friend of color.

While this might be argued as bio-

logical, it doesn’t really matter if it is 
or isn’t. Same-race-based attraction 
manifests the assumption that racial 
difference indicates cultural and 
economic difference, thus making 
integration uncomfortable. Our soci-
ety has surpassed the need to explain 
or justify things biologically because 
we negate our biological needs every 
day due to technological progress. In 
which case, it doesn’t matter if there 
is an innateness to same-race prefer-
ence — that preference, regardless of 
its foundation, has been dramatically 
shaped by racism.

We’re used to relying on our 

attraction in order to dictate our 
sexual 
and 
romantic 
pursuits. 

Attraction feels chemical, and it 
is, so we go along with it. If it says, 
“You only like white guys,” then 
that’s who we seek out — white 
guys. However, as we abide by what 
our bodies might tell us without 
challenging why, in fact, we feel 
that way, we negate the possibil-
ity for our preferences to expand. 
There’s no use in pretending that 
we wear no racial lens when at 
a party, when on a dating app or 
when we’re noticing someone on 
the street. But to recognize that 
lens as problematic is to recognize 
race-based preference as a problem.

This 
acknowledgment 
is 
not 

intended to instill guilt. Guilt, at 
its core, is useless. It’s meant to call 
into question whether or not “just 
not being into” a specific race is OK. 
It’s meant to seek an answer as to 
why we are willing to justify racism 
on the basis of physical attraction. 
It’s meant to propel the shedding of 
certain associations that may have 
caused you to consider an entire 
group of people unattractive. Iden-
tify those associations. Feed them to 
yourself. Remember that attraction is 
based upon so much more than skin. 
I’ll remember this, too.

— Abby Taskier can be reached 

at ataskier@umich.edu.

Dear Michigan Law School community,
The #BlackLivesMatter movement does 

not represent a new fight or a novel message. 
#BlackLivesMatter is only the current name 
on an ever-present struggle. The University, in 
its own right, has struggled with race since this 
law school was founded, since Gabriel Franklin 
Hargo received his diploma, since we fought in 
our nation’s highest court to protect our com-
mitment to diversity.

The core message of the #BlackLivesMatter 

movement has always existed in different forms, 
under different banners, calling attention to the 
continued racial oppression of minorities in 
American society. In its most recent iteration, 
the movement grew in response to the post-
humous trial of Trayvon Martin for his own 
murder. #BlackLivesMatter, per its website, is 
“Rooted in the experiences of Black people in 
this country who actively resist our de-human-
ization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action 
and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism 
that permeates our society.”

This letter is the University of Michigan 

Law School community’s contribution to 
the #BlackLivesMatter National Law Stu-
dent Day of Action that occurred on April 
2, 2015.

It cannot be overstated that critical race 

and economic discourses in higher educa-
tion — especially law school — are at best 
overlooked and at worst invalidated and 
misrepresented. Support from faculty and 
administration is an important institutional 
validation of students’ desire to self-educate 
about the legal hardships burdening racial 
minorities in this country.

Law schools have an imperative to take this 

movement seriously, and to reflect on our own 
role in perpetuating systems of racial oppres-
sion. Beyond reflection, we also have an obliga-
tion to take action. The law, truthfully, is both 
part of the problem and part of the solution. 
Here, at the University, many student organiza-
tions and professors have responded to recent 
events through activism at the Law School. But 
we can and must do more.

***
We call on our Michigan Law community to 

achieve the following:

First, we ask students to recognize their 

own power to change the classroom dis-
course on race and the law;

To demand race-conscious, intersectional 

conversations in classrooms from professors 
and each other;

To push for a curriculum that challenges 

students to think creatively about the law, so 
as to advance color-conscious claims on behalf 
of clients;

To continue to work with one another to shift 

the collective consciousness of the Law School 
beyond acknowledgment of racial inequality 
and toward tangible solutions;

To include people of color in student-led pro-

gramming; and,

To remember that as law students, we are 

entering a space of privilege and power, and it is 
our obligation, regardless of our future career 
paths, to continue to check our own biases and 
role in perpetuating inequality and oppression.

All students, regardless of career path, seek 

acknowledgement and meaningful inclusiv-
ity by students, faculty and administration. As 
peers, we have an obligation to pursue honest 
conversations with one another about race and 
other marginalized identities.

Next, we call on faculty to actively take 

on the challenge of incorporating discus-
sions of race into their classrooms and 
curriculums;

To nurture passionate and conscientious stu-

dents, who respect each others’ diverse back-
grounds and experiences;

To talk about race, recognize that the facts 

of cases matter, especially those involving race, 
and to include them in discussion. In taking 
the safest route toward teaching the cases, by 
avoiding such facts, professors are implicitly 
teaching students to accept the cases as they 
stand. Professors control the dialogue, and fear 
of losing control is not a sufficient justification 
for ignoring these demands;

To reevaluate their pedagogy, regardless of 

tenure, and incorporate social justice dialogues 
along the way, not just while discussing Goetz 
or Dred Scott;

To, with administration, recruit and tenure 

minority faculty, both in gender and race; and,

To question the status quo, give historical 

context to the casebook, and confront the reali-
ties of social inequality and injustice head on. 
The law does not stand separate from the soci-
ety and history from which it is produced.

If these demands seem shortsighted or too 

burdensome, we pose these questions to the 
faculty: If these difficult conversations do not 
occur during law school, when are students to 
learn the practical consequences of the cases 
we study and ultimately litigate? If not now, 
then at what stage in our legal careers should 
we open our eyes to the social, political and 
historical realities that perpetuate racial and 
class hierarchies?

Finally, we call on the Law School admin-

istration to support students and faculty in 
accomplishing these goals.

It is an obvious reality that there are sig-

nificant hurdles facing minority law school 
applicants. From the outset, minorities must 
overcome a variety of economic, educational, 
social and political hurdles just to get their foot 
in the door. The racial composition of our Law 
School, and the legal field at large, unequivo-
cally demonstrates this fact.

Because of these realities, we ask that the 

administration continue to recruit minor-
ity applicants to our Law School, intentionally 
providing a culture and classroom that is sup-
portive and welcoming to all students, for the 
benefit of all students.

We ask everyone to take a stand. Students, 

faculty and administrators should be an active 
voice in the local and national movement — host 
events, contribute to scholarship, make public 
statements of support. Keep the momentum 
alive. Injustice remains. We must act — today. 
Take a picture of yourself holding a sign 
that says, “MLaw believes #BlackLive-
Matter” and post to social media with the 
#BlackLivesMatter and #MLaw.

***
The University has always taken a leadership 

role in addressing longstanding racial inequali-
ties. In casebooks, we are remembered for reso-
lutely defending affirmative action in Grutter 
v. Bollinger — and we must continue to protect 
such important principles.

Michigan Law is an undeniably special 

place. Our aim in this letter is to show sup-
port for the #BlackLivesMatter movement 
and improve race-based dialogues and prac-
tices within our community. We believe that 
though much been done already, there is much 
more that we can do.

The following individuals and organizations 

have endorsed the aforementioned goals:

From Michigan Law:
Black Law Students Association
National Lawyers Guild
United Coalition for Racial Justice
Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Student Rights Project
Law Students for Reproductive Justice
Michigan Immigration and Labor Law Asso-

ciation

Michigan Journal of Race & Law
Asian Pacific American Law Students Asso-

ciation

Human Rights Advocates
Latino Law Student Association
ACLU Student Chapter
Other legal organizations and firms:
Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social 

Justice

Julie Hurwitz (’82), Partner, Goodman & 

Hurwitz, P.C.

Marilyn Mullane, Director, Michigan Legal 

Services.

John F. Royal, President, National Lawyers 

Guild, Michigan/Detroit Chapter

Written by Law students Meredith Osborne, 

Miriam Schachter, Sophie Wolman, Jessica 

Gingold, Amina Kirk, Divya Taneja, Peter 

Calloway, Jim Thurman and Nick Kabat.

Examinng race-based attraction

ABBY
TASKIER

UNITED COALITION FOR RACIAL JUSTICE | VIEWPOINT

Take a stand

T

here may be three games 
left to go, and the month 
of March has already come 

and 
gone, 
but 

without a doubt, I 
was not a winner 
of March Mad-
ness.

Of course, I can 

take solace in the 
fact that I have 
lost along with 
every single other 
person who filled 
out 
a 
bracket. 

Rarely do perfect 
brackets last beyond the first day of 
games, and this year was no differ-
ent. And for part of the first round, 
my bracket was about as accurate as 
a coin flip. A few rounds later, and 
I can safely say that the $10 I spent 
on my pool is no more, and such is 
the punishment for my illegal gam-
bling escapades — and also for my 
poor bracket choices.

Since I refuse to blame my own 

knowledge for my incorrect selec-
tions — because why would I ever 
do that — I’m choosing to blame 
math instead. Picking blindly from 
a field of 64 teams, there is roughly 
a one in 9.2 quintillion chance of 
picking a perfect bracket. That’s a 
really big number, and I’m forced to 
round it because the AP Stylebook 
probably doesn’t cover what to do 
with numbers that take three lines 
of text to print. If you really want-
ed to win a billion dollars, you’re 
better off trying to do it by play-

ing the Mega Millions lottery over 
and over instead of winning War-
ren Buffett’s perfect bracket chal-
lenge. Even according to the best of 
C-3P0’s calculations, picking a per-
fect bracket is two and a half qua-
drillion times more unlikely than 
navigating the asteroid field.

I know, I know, never tell you the 

odds. After all, a little bit of basket-
ball knowledge is better than blind 
picking, and there is the wealth of 
an entire Internet of statistics and 
research in your arsenal. FiveThir-
tyEight 
calculated 
its 
bracket 

predictions this year using every 
statistical source at their disposal, 
so surely they have a chance at get-
ting it right. And well, they do: by 
their estimations, they have a one in 
1,610,543,269 chance.

So, you’re telling me there’s a 

chance? Probably not. That friend 
in your pool who picked teams by 
the ferocity of their mascots and 
was sitting in a cool third place 
after the first round is proof enough 
— yes, University of Alabama at 
Birmingham Blazers, I’m look-
ing at your first-round upset and 
your dragon mascot. Meanwhile, 
the hour I spent looking up team 
research, log5 analyses and statis-
tics galore might as well have been 
spent watching Jimmy Fallon lip-
sync videos.

Yet it’s the same cruel element 

of chance that makes March Mad-
ness, well, mad. It’s looking up in 
the lecture hall and seeing all the 
computers throughout the audito-

rium watching Georgia Tech come 
back and upset Baylor. Excitement 
brought from the same mechan-
ics as picking a card from a deck 
or rolling the dice, realized in the 
extravagance of a sporting event. 
The numbers and formulas become 
irrelevant, replaced with the reality 
they tried to describe.

Chance is the drive of the thrill 

of everyday life. We’re all Charlie 
Bucket, asking, “I’ve got the same 
chance as anybody else, haven’t I?” 
Chance itself is the Golden Ticket, 
the device that takes the ordinary 
and gives it a chance to be extraor-
dinary. It takes the monotony and 
makes it into something undeter-
minable. Sometimes the only cer-
tainty is the existence of inevitable 
uncertainty, the anticipation of not 
knowing what lies behind the choc-
olate bar wrapper.

This principle of uncertainty 

governs everything around us, to 
the point where we conclude that 
Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and 
dead, and that’s somehow OK. You 
can continue spinning the wheel, 
around and around, knowing that 
in the moment you’re spinning it 
you are in control, and the moment 
you let go you relinquish it all. So 
you roll the dice, pick up whatever 
card is on top of the deck, pass Go, 
collect your $200 and go at it again.

Because all you really need is 
 

a chance.

— David Harris can be reached 

at daharr@umich.edu.

All you need is a chance

DAVID
HARRIS

 

— President Barack Obama said of the nuclear deal struck with Iran on April 2. In exchange for

 loosened economic sanctions, Iran agreed to reduce its nuclear program.
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I am confident that we can show 

that this deal is good for the security 

of the United States, for our allies 

and for the world.”

