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 — Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Exploiting social justice
N
o more please, I’ve had
enough social justice for
this week. I can’t consume
another bite.
Social
justice
warriors are easy
to find at the Uni-
versity.
They’re
big-hearted oppo-
nents of systemic
oppression, who
chase out discrim-
ination wherever
it crops up and
strive to uphold
the
politically
correct. They are
idealistic (never a
bad trait) and heartfelt, but they have
become a gang of extremists.
The nickname itself isn’t my
own creation. It’s definition isn’t
concrete, but it’s a term being widely
used to characterize the modern
do-gooder and was just added to
Oxford Dictionaries. Nothing is ever
progressive enough in the eyes of a
social justice warrior. Masses of these
pro-everything protesters fight for
social justice with the dedication and
energy of soldiers on the front line.
The collective passion for social
fairness has been growing rapidly and
unconfined to the point of backlash —
it’s too much of a good thing. There’s
no function of the social justice
movement that discriminates between
serious issues and the absurd.
There are real issues at the Univer-
sity, where the pursuit of social justice
brings about solutions. In 2014, pro-
tests by the Black Student Union led to
negotiations with University adminis-
trators to address campus diversity. I
don’t need to congratulate the BSU for
the progress it’s achieved, but it stands
out as an act of effective activism.
Used in this way, calls for social
justice can be a constructive element
of
campus
discourse.
However,
tireless efforts to sustain political
correctness, inclusion and a safe space
for everyone, sometimes get applied to
other topics of discussion.
In the past week, two articles
about meat have been published in
this paper. While I personally never
gazed across a dining hall menu for
intrigue, perhaps I was wrong not
to do so. The first meat-gate column
and the subsequent response each
garnered vocal discussion on social
media. Though it would lack tact to
reference any particular student’s
thoughts on meat-gate, it was a sub-
ject plenty of social justice warriors
were ready to battle over.
The details of meat-gate aren’t
worth delving into, but it remains a
prime example of how social justice
is overplayed.
Pro-meat, anti-meat — it doesn’t
matter which stance to take because
it’s
an
inane
and
meaningless
conversation altogether. If these
are the types of discussions we as a
student body decide to have in public
forum, then we should remember to
take breaks to laugh at ourselves.
The core values of social justice
—
inclusion,
diversity,
freedom
from discrimination, etc. — are
important issues, and should be
taken seriously. Yet, they have been
applied in ridiculous circumstances
that undermine the reputation of the
entire social movement.
Almost by definition, social jus-
tice warriors are emphatically lib-
eral. After all, expanding social
programs and the welfare state are
classic liberal ideas. However, the
needless policing of political cor-
rectness, on social media in partic-
ular, by social justice warriors, in
social media in particular, has gone
too far. A movement meant to unite
is causing diversion, and social jus-
tice warriors are making the left
wing of politics look bad.
In the same way that millions of
Americans are moderate voters, most
people are moral moderates as well.
Most people aren’t homophobes or
racists, but they aren’t archangels
of social justice either. None of us
can expect to always be perfectly
refined in our social lives, and we
all carry prejudices. Failing to
acknowledge these truisms grinds
any
conversations
about
social
rights and justice to a halt, because
prescriptive social justice wants
humans to act as something they can
never be — creatures without bias.
Social justice warriors have proud-
ly claimed their place at the helm of
human morality, taking offense with
any action that hasn’t been bleached
clean by political correctness. Life on
campus is sometimes like an episode
of South Park. But not everything
needs to be examined through a crys-
tallized lens of social idealism.
Kanye gifted us with the wisdom-
bomb “the art ain’t always gonna
be polite” during his vanguard
acceptance speech at this year’s
VMAs. And indeed, it’s interesting
to imagine what the landscape of art
might look like if someone tried to
restrict Kanye’s choice of words.
Social
justice
is
clearly
a
positive and important cause, but
in a microcosm like Ann Arbor’s
University
community,
it
has,
ironically, become somewhat difficult
to practice self-expression without
having to consider the infinite ways
words might be misinterpreted to
betray the intended meaning. A bland
statement of opinion can ignite a fiery
debate about dining hall menus.
We should forgive people who
cause offense or ignorance in our
communities today, not digitally
tar and feather them with Facebook
comments. It needs to be accepted
that people aren’t perfect, and we
should stop heralding social justice
buzzwords to such extreme lengths.
If the tendency to force-feed political
correctness goes unchecked, we might
start suffocating our collective ability
to have any meaningful conversation
at all.
— Tyler Scott can be reached
at tylscott@umich.edu.
TYLER
SCOTT
Treat yo’ self
M
aybe it was Princess Barbie or
Ballerina Barbie who prompted
me to cast my eyes downward to
my stomach only to realize
that it was no longer as flat
or toned as I remembered.
Maybe
I
was
10?
Maybe sooner?
Ten-year-old
Megan
didn’t have to worry too
much about having a stom-
ach like Lizzy McGuire;
she was more preoccupied
singing an off-key “What
Dreams Are Made Of.” My
first exposure to the word
“diet” was when a class-
mate’s mother packed her a “Diet Sunny-D”
for lunch.
But with the Kardashians ruling social media
and the pressures on young girls to always look
their best in today’s society, it’s hard not to envi-
sion a future made up of anorexic supermodels
and super-super-super skinny jeans. However,
there’s a glimmer of hope for confidence, and
her name is Amy Schumer.
Weight has been a problem that, for most
of my life, I’ve struggled with — even if I’ve
learned how to expertly hide my insecurities.
If a conversation involving weight comes up, I
usually joke that my stomach currently looks
like the topographic map of Colorado. The
comment receives some laughs, distracting
me from the fact that I’ve just unintentionally
put myself down. I’ve never felt very comfort-
able in my body for long, constantly fluctuating
between the “fat” and “skinny” standards, but
never staying on one long enough to accept my
weight and move on. With a wardrobe consist-
ing of jeans bigger and smaller than my current
size and shirts capable of stretching easily, it’s
hard not to look at the numbers.
Last year, the pressures of beginning my
time as a University student in difficult courses
created low confidence in my academic abili-
ties, which led to eating habits ranging from
skipping meals to midnight pantry visits for
a fourth meal. I was paranoid of gaining the
dreaded “freshman 15” and letting the number
on the tag multiply as my meals fluctuated.
I stayed in that funk for almost an entire
year until a fellow resident commented that I
reminded him or her of Amy Schumer because
of my blasé comments about my own size. At the
time, I thanked him or her for picking my favor-
ite comedian to represent me and moved back
to working on my bowl of sliced pineapple. But
recently, Schumer has drawn national attention
for her open and honest comments about her
relationship with weight (I’m not talking about
that Kardashian comment).
My younger sister, Kellen, remains at a size
0 despite the amount of food she practically
inhales. (I used to have a theory that our stom-
achs were swapped when we were younger.)
So naturally, shopping was always hard on my
self-image when we inevitably headed to the
dressing rooms. Outfits I found beautiful would
often not fit, and almost anything Kellen tried
on would result in a solid “yes” as my “no” pile
steadily grew. I was often unable to find cloth-
ing that both flattered my body and did justice
to my personality. Wanting to look as fashion-
ably savvy as the models on those magazines
but without the body for those clothes, I felt
like I should fix myself first rather than go up
that size or two. Most times, I pulled my sweat-
er back around my shoulders and slid down
the mirror of the dressing room, plastering on
a fake smile to tell the assistant, “Nope, didn’t
find anything.”
The first steps toward fixing this problem for
future generations has begun with comedians
like Amy Schumer and Rebel Wilson paving
the way for style and clothing tailored to fit the
person, not the image.
In a serious moment not typical of the criti-
cally acclaimed comedian, Schumer becomes
emotional, recalling her struggles with self-
image in Hollywood and finding clothing that
made her feel as confident on the outside as
she was on the inside. That is, until the “Train-
wreck” star met Leesa Evans on the set, who
dressed Schumer in more flattering clothes
tailored to compliment her looks, not hide
them. Soon, she felt like a professional, beau-
tiful young woman and regained the humor
she’s most well known for, referring to her body
recently as a “lava lamp.”
Yeah, maybe now I can see the similarities.
Nowadays, I still find myself looking down
at my thighs in those tiny lecture seats think-
ing “Shit, guys. What’s the deal?! You were sup-
posed to stay in those size fives!” And though
these thoughts are ever-present, the humor
wipes away insecurities as I find the ability to
laugh at myself in a positive, healthy way.
Self-image is a problem in today’s progres-
sive society that won’t be fixed by one comedi-
an admitting to her struggles with weight, and
I know that. Though we can’t very well expose
children to the Schumer’s skits, we could do
well to teach confidence and self-respect to
young girls, using Schumer as the face behind
the revolution, not those that promote weight
loss and plasticity. The focus should shift
toward being healthy and feeling good on the
inside. You can run a mile a day and eat salad
all you want, but sometimes, you’ve just gotta
treat yo’ self.
And Amy’s right. Khloe should learn to
compromise and eat a bagel every once and a
while, too.
— Megan Mitchell can be
reached at umeg@umich.edu.
MEGAN
MITCHELL
Ending the stigma around abortion
STUDENTS FOR CHOICE | VIEWPOINT
Despite
the
deep
political
entrenchment of the abortion debate
in American politics, we never seem
to talk about the fact that abortion
is a common experience among
American women. According to
2008 research from the Guttmacher
Institute, one in three women* will
have an abortion in her lifetime.
Yet, we don’t talk about abortion:
We legislate it, regulate it, define
what it is and isn’t and what it
should and shouldn’t mean.
Rather than being looked at as an
individual experience, abortion is
too often examined and dissected
through a framework of politics and
cultural standards that trap women
who have had abortions in a double
bind. When a woman feels relieved
after having an abortion, she is vili-
fied as an individual, then treated
as the representative for all women
who have had abortion, accused
as being heartless or accused of
repressing her “true feelings.” On
the other hand, if a woman expe-
riences even the slightest regret
of her abortion, anti-choice activ-
ists will use her narrative as a tool
to advance restrictive policies that
police women’s access to abortion
care. In the midst of this political
trivialization and cultural classi-
fication of a person’s lived experi-
ence, individuals’ abortion stories
are effectively silenced.
Stigma exists on all levels: indi-
vidual, community, institutional,
legal and in the media. This stigma
is pervasive, as we can identify it
at all of these levels. For example,
myths of the danger of abortion
circulate and women who have had
abortions experience shame, guilt,
marginalization and are labeled
either victims or promiscuous.
Likewise, abortion providers are
stigmatized. Research conducted at
this very university has linked con-
sciousness clauses — which permit
doctors to opt out of performing
abortions — to the stigmatization
of abortion providers who are often
stereotyped as incompetent physi-
cians. Providers may also fear for
their physical safety as a result of
the stigma: Since 1993, eight clinic
workers have been murdered.
As you can see, this stigma
affects people’s lives. These people
are women in our University
community. One in three isn’t just
a statistic; it’s a representation of
all the women in your life who have
had abortions but have not been
given the opportunity to talk about
them. Every time an anti-abortion
law is proposed and every time a
group of anti-abortion activists
stands in front of a clinic entrance
with signs that shame individuals
who have abortions, we’re shaming
one-third of our nation’s women for
a choice that they made about their
lives. This shaming effectively tells
women who have had abortions —
and women who are going to have
abortions — that their experience
is invalid, and that the choice
they made about their pregnancy
is shameful.
It’s our duty as young people who
care about the safety and wellbeing
of our community to amplify the
voices of individuals who have
had abortions by creating a space
for them to share their stories
free of the shame and stigma that
currently
surrounds
abortion.
We’re reclaiming our voices and
telling our stories so that women
around the nation can tell theirs,
too. Not only do we hope that
the sharing of personal abortion
stories finally puts an end to the
stigmatization of abortion, but we
hope that it mobilizes abortion
supporters to advocate for safe,
legal and affordable abortion care.
This Thursday, Nov. 12 at 8 p.m.
in the Anderson Room of the Michi-
gan Union, Students for Choice will
be holding its third annual Abortion
Speak Out. The Abortion Speak Out
is an opportunity for members of
our campus community who have
had an abortion(s) to share their
experience in a safe, supportive and
judgment-free space. Afterward, the
Speak Out will be open for anyone to
share their personal abortion story.
While we encourage all University
community members to join us in
listening to the stories of friends and
peers, only individuals who have
had an abortion will have the oppor-
tunity to speak.
It’s
time
to
come
together
to end the stigma and shame
around abortion.
*We recognize that not all people
who have abortions identify as
women; transgender men and gender-
nonconforming individuals also opt
to terminate pregnancies. However,
available
statistical
data
only
measures the prevalence of abortion
among cisgender women.
Wrriten by LSA junior Meg Rattani
on behalf of Students for Choice.
Revitalizing nationalism
A
s a collective, Americans have grown
less patriotic. In the last 16 years, the
amount of “very proud” American citi-
zens has dropped from 77
percent to 56 percent.
Americans have openly
admitted to the drop in
national pride. According
to a poll by The Atlantic
and The Aspen Institute
for the Aspen Ideas Festi-
val, “More than two-thirds
(of the public) believe that
American
values
have
declined.”
Reportedly,
these values — freedom of
speech and individual lib-
erties, equality under the law and free enter-
prise — are seen to be deteriorating, as many
believe these values only apply to the wealth-
iest Americans. Specifically, the majority of
Americans “believe that an obsession with
money and material things, the influence of
money in politics” have weakened core val-
ues, making them relevant to individuals of
the highest socioeconomic status.
Our lost national pride is likely due to a
general distaste for our political leaders and
institutions. Approximately 64 percent of
Americans don’t want their kids pursuing a
political career, according to Gallup. Similarly,
people’s trust in Congress ranks 16th (last)
behind institutions like churches, the military,
public schools, etc. Furthermore, most teens
don’t want to grow up to be president. In gen-
eral, we’ve become disattisfied with American
representatives, institutions and values.
The proliferation of media sites constantly
covering power holders in Washington, D.C.,
has influenced this general decline in national-
ism. With the rise of digital media sites, people
have more exposure to news events than ever
before. This coverage often unveils corruption,
deceit, and ignorance of and general disappoint-
ment in our political leaders. While there isn’t
necessarily more corruption or malfeasance
today than before, there are more organizations
attempting to hold our leaders accountable.
As a growing body of journalists uncovers
unfortunate truths within our political
leadership and institutions, Americans have
turned to themselves for inspiration. About
70 percent of Americans have stated that they
can get anything they want in this country if
they work hard enough. More depressing,
though,
is
that
Americans’
personal
narcissism has climbed to higher rates.
According to a cross-temporal study of Ameri-
can college students, two-thirds of students’ nar-
cissism scores (measured by psychologists) have
risen 30 percent over the mean since 1982. Addi-
tionally, a Pew Research Center poll found that
59 percent of millennials admitted to being more
self-absorbed than previous generations.
Considering the decline in nationalism and
trust in political leadership, it should come
as no surprise that Americans believe them-
selves to be more important than previous
generations. Who else can they trust but their
families, friends and selves?
Unfortunately, the decline in nationalism
and rising individualist mentality is corre-
lated with lower civic participation. Since
people are less dedicated to the goals of
America, they’re less willing to volunteer or
make sacrifices for their country. Over the
past few decades, volunteerism has declined
significantly. According to Robert Putnam,
participation in the Boy Scouts has dropped
26 percent since 1970, and activity in the Red
Cross has fallen 61 percent in the same time
period. While youth involvement rose sig-
nificantly just after 9/11, the general trend of
decreased volunteerism has remained consis-
tent, as of 2014, according to the U.S. News &
World Report.
SAM
COREY
Curiously, these stats raise an
interesting question: Should the
increased exposure of political cor-
ruption influence us to become less
appreciative of (and therefore less
service-oriented toward) America?
Personally, I don’t think so.
The fact that America is not the
idealistic nation we want to reside
in now doesn’t mean it can’t be more
like that place tomorrow. In fact, our
recognition of problems and failures
in our political system provide us all
with an opportunity to make it bet-
ter. These circumstances are par-
ticularly inspiring in a democratic
society. The identification of our
opportunities should galvanize us to
be more grateful for America; more
thankful, more selfless and more
service-oriented for what we have
and for understanding our possibil-
ity to become better nationally and
individually.
One particular satirical news
anchor has adopted this think-
ing. Jon Stewart, the former host of
“The Daily Show” and an avid critic
of American politics and the dirty
incentives that drive our political
leaders, has harped on the impor-
tance of civic duty. He believes
national service, as long as it doesn’t
stray from one’s critical understand-
ing of our leaders’ goals and one’s per-
sonal goals, is beneficial for everyone.
In other words, he believes we
should be critically proud of America
for what is has given us, and for what
it can give us, because we are citi-
zens with the capacity to change it.
That opportunity implicitly demands
responsibility from everyone con-
tinuing to question our leaders and
then improving America’s standing
in our world. In this context, former
president John F. Kennedy’s words
ring true: “Ask not what your country
can do for you — ask what you can do
for your country.”
And while it’s necessary to rec-
ognize the possible xenophobia,
discrimination and genocide that
groupthink patriotism creates, a
strong dose of critical nationalism
provides our country and our com-
munities with a stronger civil society
and a more participatory democ-
racy. In rather obvious terms, it’s
beneficial for everyone to dedicate
themselves to their fellow citizens.
Without doing so, we’ll continue
losing a sense of selflessness, a duty
to something greater and a com-
mitment to giving back to what and
whom we’ve benefited from.
— Sam Corey can be reached
at samcorey@umich.edu.