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 — Monday, September 28, 2015

Rapists. Illegals. Drug traffickers.
These are just a few of the terms used in 

recent months to describe people who look 
like me. They’re spread through social media, 
through talk radio, and through presiden-
tial hopefuls on the national stage. They have 
fueled a sometimes nasty, and often inaccurate, 
debate about immigration in the United States. 
Along the way — amid all the pain and vitriol 
— they have created a huge opportunity, one on 
which our generation must take the lead.

The current dialogue about immigration 

has once again put Latinos in the United 
States at the forefront of national discussion. 
And the fact that it’s not the caliber of con-
versation our Latino communities deserve 
means we have the chance to change it; it’s 
our chance to have our voices heard.

As a teacher in a majority-minority city 

in California where nearly all of my stu-
dents identified as Latino, I often bonded 
with my kids over our shared culture. We’ve 
swapped stories about eating tamales around 
the holidays and shared photos of siblings’ 
 

quinceñeara celebrations.

Ours became a true, inclusive community. 

I beamed with pride as my kids welcomed a 
new student who spoke no English with open 
arms, eagerly translating for her and helping 
her study flashcards to pick up the language.

But I also watched with a sinking heart 

as my kids navigated situations they didn’t 
deserve. During my second year of teach-
ing, one of my students and his older brother 

came into school with his head down, looking 
shaken. Their parents had just been deported. 
As we scrambled to ensure they had a place to 
stay, the boys wondered when they would see 
their family again.

Reflecting back, I know that my kids’ 

pain and progress was part of something 
that extended far beyond the walls of our 
classroom. Across the country, Latinos lag 
behind their white counterparts in every-
thing from high school graduation to reading 
and math performance. This has nothing to 
do with ability or will. It’s a direct reflection 
of systemic gaps in educational opportunity 
according to race, class and zip code. And 
with our country’s entire population moving 
toward majority-minority, unless we address 
these gaps, we will soon live in a country 
where the majority of students are behind.

When I first came to the University, I knew 

I wanted to work in public policy, but I didn’t 
know teaching would be such a foundational 
part of my path. Every day, as I work to advo-
cate for the legal rights of special-education 
students, I’m grateful that I followed my gut. 
When I learned about Teach For America, 
the mission of expanding opportunity for 
low-income students and the experience of 
working in a high-need community resonated 
deeply with me. After three years in the class-
room, I went to law school because I wanted 
to effect large-scale change in the systems 
that were inhibiting my students’ and their 
families’ pathways to success. Now, I’m a 

Exceptionalism and diplomacy

Advocating for Latino students

T

he last time a president was elected, 
millennials didn’t have the impact 
on the election they probably wished 

they had.

According to the Pew 

Research Center’s analysis 
of a 2013 U.S. Census 
Bureau report, America’s 
generation of adults born 
after 1980 accounted for 
25.5 percent of eligible 
voters, and that portion 
should 
increase. 
As 

millennials grow older, the 
report states, their share of 
the electorate is expected 
to blossom to 36.5 percent 
by 2020.

As the political relevance of millennials 

grows, it will be interesting to see how they 
shape 2016 and future election cycles. The 
colleges and universities of America have 
a long-established tradition as hotbeds for 
political debate.

However, assuming their advisers had the 

foresight to glance at the voting data from the 
2012 election, politicians today probably do 
not seek out university venues in the hopes of 
reaching out to young constituents.

Pew also reports that 41.2 percent of 

eligible voters aged 18 to 24 turned in a ballot 
in 2012 — more than a 7.3-percent decrease 
from 2008. This pales in stark comparison 
to the 71.9 percent of Americans aged 65 and 
older who cast ballots in 2012, for example.

Look around Ann Arbor today. Campaign 

signs are cropping up like weeds amid the 
flyers and sidewalk billboards that perennially 
bloom on campus.

It’s clearly evident that “Feel The Bern” and 

“Ready for Hillary” signage is more prevalent 
here than “Make America Great Again.” The 
one time I did see a Donald Trump T-shirt, 
it was coupled with a Hawaiian one, and I 
assumed it was worn ironically.

As the Republican Party continues to 

implode, someone has been canvassing the 
University with Democratic catchphrases. 
We know it isn’t the students, because if 
one applies Pew’s report to the University’s 
population, it seems like less than half of them 
care enough to vote.

Whoever 
the 
friendly 
neighborhood 

Democrat may be, he or she seems to be having 
an effect on the national stage. Friday, the 
New York Times announced that two and a 
half weeks before the first Democratic debate, 
Bernie Sanders has built a strong lead in the 
New Hampshire primary polls that will hold 
even if Vice President Joe Biden were to throw 
his hat in the ring.

The resiliency of Sanders’ campaign is 

impressive for a man who paints himself 
so vividly as a far-left socialist. In the Fox 
News era of journalism, where news outlets 
are more concerned with political ideology 
than the standards of ethical journalism, 
it’s remarkable that Sanders hasn’t been 
scorned as an enemy of the state or something 
similarly ridiculous.

No doubt that Sanders benefits from being a 

white man. If he were a minority or a woman, 
his campaign and position on issues would be 
bombarded by attacks from conservatives like 
Donald Trump, who appear to chase doses of 
xenophobia with a swigww of misogyny at 
breakfast time.

It’s tiring to explain again how Sanders is a 

socialist on a mission to take the money power 
out of politics and Wall Street. With so much 
time remaining before the primary election, it 
seems repetitive, but it’s important.

The early success of Sanders’ campaign is 

a political miracle that will only grow more 
impressive the longer his current uptick in 
popularity maintains. To paraphrase the 
activist Saul Alinsky: Money and people are the 
two sources of political power.

Sanders has alienated himself from big-

money politics, more so than anyone on the 
conservative side of the aisle, more so than 
Hillary Clinton. And this is what may cost 
Sanders as the election grows nearer.

In a typical campaign, candidates spend 

months and millions convincing voters to 
believe in them. Sanders must spend his time 
convincing those who believe in him to vote 
at all. His status in the polls is impressive, 
but they’re generated by research groups 
 

seeking responses.

CNN might just come to your house, or at 

least call you up on the phone, to see which 
candidate you’re leaning toward at the 
moment, but voting is a totally voluntary task. 
If you don’t take the initiative to cast a ballot 
on Election Day, you won’t be getting a call 
from the county clerk.

Everyone but the government might ask you 

how you’ll vote next election season.

The worst-case scenario for Sanders is 

if the ones spreading his leaflets across the 
country and this campus are the college 
students — young people filled with ideals, 
but who can’t find their way to the voting 
booth. It’s interesting to consider exactly 
why a 74-year-old senator resonates so loudly 
with the youthful masses, but that’s another 
conversation all together.

Because Sanders’ name doesn’t have serious 

financial backing (by choice of his own), he 
relies solely on the support of real ballots. Point 
is, the hashtags are helpful for now, but they 
won’t get Sanders the Democratic nomination. 
Millennials are a growing percentage of 
potential voters, and the most likely to voice 
their support of a candidate online, but they 
still have disappointingly low voter turnout.

Separate from the politician, Sanders’ idea 

of the taking money out of politics serves the 
best interest of every individual who doesn’t 
own or operate a super PAC. What Sanders 
is preaching is that he won’t be bought or 
influenced by anyone.

Millennials eligible to vote should do the 

same. Cut through gross political spending by 
casting ballots — not for Sanders, necessarily, 
but for positive self-interest.

— Tyler Scott can be reached 

at tylscott@umich.edu.

E-mail in Chan at tokg@umiCh.Edu
IN CHAN LEE 

T

he 
Middle 
East 
is 
a 

complicated place. Divided 
by 
ethnicity, 
political 

affiliation 
and 

religion, 
over 

the last century, 
arbitrarily 
set 

boundaries have 
forced different 
peoples 
to 

attempt working 
in unity. That’s 
to say, outside 
powers such as 
Britain, France, 
Spain 
and 

Italy 
meshed 

competing 
interests 
together, 

fusing their land, resources and 
interests. During the transition to 
independence, these boundaries 
became 
legitimate 
national 

borders. (To be fair, teachers and 
students around the world have 
rehearsed this history lesson, but 
it’s something we must not forget).

Since World War II, many of the 

colonizers have tried picking up 
the pieces, repairing the strife they 
created in the Middle East — either 
for national gain, security, develop-
ment or a confluence of the three.

Then came America.
Through arming rebels, sup-

porting dictators or advancing war, 
the United States has gone to great 
lengths in order to secure its inter-
ests and stabilize the region. Much 
of our role in the Middle East, and 
the world at large, is due to the 
belief in “American exceptional-
ism”: an idea promoting America as 
unique in its valuing of individual-
ism, liberty, egalitarianism and the 
free market. This concept, while 
spirited and momentarily empow-
ering, has led the United States 
to militarily intervene when it’s 
unjustifiable or unnecessary, acting 
often as the world’s police. Fortu-
nately, there are numerous ways to 
promote peace, diplomacy and pro-
tect our interests abroad without 
using brute force. In short, “peace 
in the Middle East” can be achieved 
through humanitarian efforts that 
develop nations from the ground 
up, and welcoming refugees and 
immigrants 
whenever 
possible, 

thereby helping people directly. 

The current Syrian refugee cri-

sis is a wake-up call, demanding a 
reformation of what international 
diplomacy in this region — and 
around the world — should look 
like. In the midst of human chaos 
and tragedy, the United States can 
have a role in honoring human 
rights, prosperity and global secu-
rity. By providing more Syrians 
refuge, we can protect humans, 
raise our image as a benevolent 
world actor and, yes, develop our 
 

own nation.

Unfortunately, many politicians 

are unwilling to accept refugees 
because they see it as funneling ter-
rorism to the motherland. To me, 
that’s straight Islamophobia.

Regardless of your perspec-

tive, though, there’s an important 
lesson in this — America’s hubris 
has created, or influenced, inter-
national conflict. Specifically, the 
concept of American exceptional-
ism has prompted congressmen to 
support the bombing of insurgents 
and propagate war. But wheth-
er or not you believe American 
exceptionalism is justified, it’s still 
important to recognize the oppor-
tunity and responsibility America 
has to facilitate global security 
 

and development.

Advancing educational, health 

and economic sectors, accepting 
immigrants and promoting vital 
civil societies where people express 
and maintain freedoms in the 
developing world is our most effec-
tive weapon against terrorism.

Let’s now return to the current 

refugee crisis.

We can’t support dictator Bashar 

al-Assad as we’ve done with lead-
ers who’ve propagated all sorts 
of crimes and rebel groups who — 
momentarily — act for liberating 
or democratic causes (or simply, 
causes that are in our best inter-
est). In Syria, we’ve already spent 
$41 million on rebel forces. It’s not 
going well.

We can’t send in the Air Force 

to remove Assad — as we know the 
horrifying power vacuum created 
in Libya when assisting in efforts to 
remove Gadaffi.

We can’t bomb our way through 

Syria with American force, like 
Bush’s war in Iraq and President 
Barack Obama’s drone strikes in 
Pakistan. These actions destroy 
foreigners’ 
trust 
in 
America. 

Referring to drones, in particu-
lar, one Georgetown professor is 
quoted saying, “(Drones) have the 
right to kill anyone, anywhere on 
Earth, at any time for secret rea-
sons based on secret evidence in 
a secret process undertaken by 
 

unidentified officials.”

But not using drones and war 

tactics doesn’t mean we can’t do 
anything for Syrians. We can open 
our doors to them.

When discussing refugee acqui-

sition or immigration, it’s impor-
tant to note that taking in refugees 
is not a zero-sum game. If America 
allows refugees in, refugees will 
return the favor. I’ll skip over the 
psychological, security and eco-
nomic benefits it provides to refu-
gees, and just mention the benefits 
for America. Yes, in the short term 
America will pay for housing, Eng-
lish lessons and job training, but in 
the long term, this will yield divi-
dends for the United States. Refu-

gees, more than immigrants and 
natives, are more likely to start 
small businesses. Additionally, Syr-
ian refugees are consumers, and, as 
such, will benefit local economies. 
The quicker a nation can help them 
assimilate, the faster they will help 
that nation.

So far, the United States hasn’t 

done enough. Since September 
10, we’ve accepted 1,500 refugees 
and some senators have pushed to 
accept 65,000. That’s good, but way 
behind Germany’s 98,700 and Tur-
key’s 1.9 million.

On a grand scale, though, Ameri-

ca’s foreign policy agenda is shifting 
in a better direction — toward more 
foreign assistance and less force; 
more diplomacy and less excep-
tionalism. In an interview, Obama 
recognized the need to combine 
“national security” and “foreign 
assistance.” Here, he refers to stra-
tegic efforts — supplying aid work-
ers, restructuring criminal justice 
systems and developing economies 
— as more critical in the world than 
leveraging our military.

Still, there’s room for improve-

ment. Less than 1 percent of the 
U.S. budget goes to foreign aid, 
while 17 percent is committed to 
defense. As the president himself 
said, they need to be treated as one 
and the same.

Just as we cannot colonize our 

way to economic development or 
stability, we cannot dominate how 
a country operates economically, 
socially or politically. However, we 
can facilitate development. We can 
fund technology, health, educa-
tion and business sectors. We can 
invest in economies of the develop-
ing world like China does in Africa. 
We can aid in the progress of other 
countries as partners — expanding 
the global economy and making 
things safer for the United States 
and the world.

Foreign policy predominantly 

run by humanitarian efforts — 
educating world citizens, keep-
ing them healthy and raising their 
standard of living — has another 
implication: becoming a nation for 
the good. People will, in turn, look 
to the United States as benevolent, 
helping the development of their 
country. Syrians citizens will want 
to travel here, acquire American 
goods and make friends, there-
by promoting global safety on a 
local and state level, not funneling 
 

in terrorism.

This form of diplomacy isn’t easy. 

Diplomacy and global peace is a 
slow process.

But there are no quick and dirty 

tricks for solving global crises, and 
diplomacy is our best option. 

— Sam Corey can be reached 

at samcorey@umich.edu.

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh, 

Adam Morton, Victoria Noble, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Melissa Scholke, 

Michael Schramm, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Millenials must vote

TYLER
SCOTT

lawyer who understands the com-
plexities, the challenges and just 
how much there is at stake. 

When our national conversation 

doesn’t do right by our communi-
ties, it’s easy to get angry. It’s easy 
to scream or walk away. It’s easy 
to fall victim to doubts that any-
thing will ever change. But it’s also 
imperative that we act. We can use 

our education and our experiences 
to become leaders and shape the 
stories ourselves. We can help the 
kids that will come of age in the 
next decades fulfill their potential 
so they can thrive. My students 
have all now graduated from high 
school and are off to college. I can’t 
wait to watch as they help lead our 
country to a brighter future.

Resilient. Strong. Smart. Those 

are the words that describe my kids, 
my family and my community. It’s 
time for their country to know it. 
It’s time for their voices to be heard.

— Christine Florick Nishimura 

is a 2006 alumnus of the Univer-

sity and a former corps member for 
 

Teach for America-Los Angeles. 

CHRISTINE FLORICK NISHIMURA | VIEWPOINT

SAM
COREY