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, November 23, 2015

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

Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, 

Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley 

Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Misguided empathy for Paris

O

n Nov. 13, Paris was hit by a 
series of terrorists attacks. 
By the night’s end, a barrage 

of shooting and 
suicide bombings 
left 
about 
130 

people dead and 
hundreds 
more 

injured. This was 
the most deadly 
attack France has 
faced since World 
War II.

The 
reaction 

from the tragedy 
naturally sparked 
widespread fear 
across the globe, 
particularly in Western countries. 
Collectively, the public’s heightened 
fear has initiated a call for imme-
diate security from our national 
governments. Although this is a nat-
ural human reaction, the response is 
socially and politically misguided.

Emotionally speaking, our fear of 

terrorism is warranted. After wit-
nessing terrorist activity in Paris (in 
addition to that in Beirut and Mali), 
people became increasingly intimi-
dated. They should be.

Since technological advancements 

have spread to more people with no 
official (or elected) power, the capac-
ity of an individual or small group of 
people to cause extensive destruc-
tion has become a growing concern. 
As Moises Naim argues in “The End 
of Power,” technological develop-
ments over the past few decades have 
allowed for the widespread disper-
sion of information and more com-
plex social groupings. The result has 
led to more power concentrated in 
the hands of fewer, thereby dimin-
ishing the influence of our elected 
officials and institutions. Typically, 
this power is positively utilized, 
improving education levels and indi-
vidual autonomy. However, in the 
wrong hands, increased power can 
be devastating.

The increased capacity for wide-

spread destruction by a small num-
ber of organized deviants increases 
the threat of terrorism. Consequent-
ly, watching this destruction unfold 
makes our lives appear more precari-
ous and therefore more precious. As 
we are exposed to traumatic series of 
human suffering through innumer-
able media channels, we, in turn, feel 
pressing sadness, despair and fear in 
our hearts and minds, as if the attack 
had occurred to us.

Initially, people’s fear from these 

lethal attacks expose humanity’s 
most beautiful trait: empathy. When 
we connect emotionally with others 
in harm’s way, we often offer chari-
table and emotional support. Expres-
sion of empathy allows us to care for 
people we’d otherwise be unconnect-
ed with, living halfway around the 
world. Unfortunately, empathy, in 
the background of intense terrorism, 
leads to fear, as we personally imag-
ine confrontation with terrorism. 
And while fear alone is manageable, 
when it drives our political and social 
decisions, it’s problematic. In Ameri-
ca’s recent history, we’ve entertained 
a path driven by fear. The results 
have been tragic.

After the planes hit the World 

Trade Center in 2001, the natural 
human reactions of empathy, sad-
ness, despair and fear brewed in 
America. Ultimately, these feel-
ings galvanized a sense of need for 
national security, leading to two 
wars, and the creation of Guanta-
namo Bay (along with torture-ridden 
black sites). In the former, we were 
left with mounting human fatality 
and trillions of dollars wasted. In the 
latter, according to scholar Joseph 
Margulies, many innocent people 
were abused without due process 
under the law. What’s more, our fears 
of terrorism have likely endured 14 
years after 9/11, as President Barack 
Obama has been unable to remove all 
American troops from Afghanistan 
and is continuously rebuffed when 
he attempts to close Gitmo. 

As noted, our fear-driven behavior 

and decisions in light of harrowing 
terrorist attacks are not completely 
uncalled for; they are a natural reac-
tion to human suffering. In turn, we 
search for security. Our fear-driven 
response galvanizes us to ensure 
America’s safety, liberty and democ-
racy. On the surface, this appears 
good. We want to shield Americans 
from unjust harm. However, our 
push for safety becomes problematic 
when we infringe on the liberty and 
security of foreigners, in addition to 
American citizens.

Our priority for safety is made 

in light of terrorism’s challenge — 
offering us a choice between safety 
and liberty. The more personal lib-
erty we maintain, the more at risk 
we are of terrorist acts. This initiates 
a controversial debate — should we 
abrogate our values and personal lib-
erty for the sake of security? Should 
we do everything in our power to 
keep American citizens safe, even if 
that means invasive National Secu-
rity Agency techniques and locking 
people away without due process? 
In response to terrorism, our initial 
instincts have led us to choose the 
former; we have done everything 
possible to keep American citizens 
safe even while disregarding the 
rights of individuals. However, in 
times of fear and uncertainty, maybe 
it would be more helpful to reconsid-
er how we view terrorism.

Maybe, as David Foster Wallace 

suggests, we should consider those 
who die at the hands of terrorists to 
be martyrs, who’ve sacrificed their 
lives for freedom, liberty and democ-
racy. In reality, the alternative seems 
much worse. The late author ven-
tured down this path when he asked 
if Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the 
PATRIOT Acts, warrantless sur-
veillance, etc. are worth protecting 
Americans’ safety? And let’s be hon-
est, when these institutions claim to 
protect “Americans’ ” safety, they’re 
really excluding Muslim Americans 
or any person one could associate 
with the Middle East. 

Today, the attacks in Paris — strik-

ing fear into the general public — have 
occurred in the midst of a critical for-
eign policy issue: the Syrian refugee 
crises. Many American governors 
have made a choice: increase security 
and refuse to accept Syrian refugees, 

presumably because they believe 
Muslims to be the root cause of ter-
rorism. Again, misguided fear has 
become an immediate social problem 
in today’s political climate. Again, 
America is on a track that actively and 
passively abuses the rights of others. 
Unfortunately, terrorism — the cause 
of our fear and vulnerability — justi-
fies these actions to the public, allow-
ing our representatives to make very 
poor, prejudicial decisions. Ultimate-
ly, representatives overlook the cause 
of terrorism: the lack of autonomy, 
agency and political rights terror-
ists feel, leading them to cause great 
harm to others. Our reaction does 
more than propagate Islamophobia. 
Our reaction destroys the possibility 
for resolve, the end to terrorism and 
relief for its victims.

Our prejudice won’t help us under-

stand why these people do what they 
do — what is influencing people to 
want to cause mass destruction. 
After all, terrorists are humans even 
if they act inhumanely. Therefore, 
they are driven by the same human 
instincts as the rest of us. If we begin 
assessing them as such, we can fairly 
and objectively question what they 
do and why they do it. Instead, we 
consider persons who allegedly con-
duct acts of terrorism to be inhu-
man, and dismiss them of their full 
rights under the law. Unfortunately, 
infringing on terrorists’ civil liber-
ties will not get America any closer to 
eradicating terrorism.

Of course, having read this far 

(and probably declaring me a tree-
hugging liberal hippie), you may be 
asking, what about your life? Are you 
not afraid of putting your life in jeop-
ardy of a massacre? And, further-
more, what about the families that 
are randomly taken, the lives lost? 
Should we not do everything possible 
to bring these victims restitution?

From my view, infringing on the 

rights of others is not the proper way 
for victims and their families to heal 
from terrorism. Sacrificing my per-
sonal values — liberty, justice, due 
process under the law for all global 
citizens — is worth my life. The alter-
native — persecuting others due to 
excessive fear and prejudice — is 
much worse.

Today, our political, domestic and 

international systems ensure that 
we don’t arbitrarily destroy a human 
life or strip it of all its value, even 
if that human life has committed 
deplorable crimes. In other words, 
our nations have made themselves 
responsible for protecting individu-
als by laws and processes that place 
value on human lives. Personally, I 
don’t want to live in a place where 
my government stops deeming all 
people as humans, unworthy of min-
imum respect and dignity. Warring 
(relatively) arbitrarily with nations 
and indiscriminately sorting people 
in institutions like “black sites” and 
Guantanamo Bay epitomizes this 
place. There’s much more terror I feel 
from that prospect than anything 
an extremist with a weapon can do 
 

to me.

— Sam Corey can be reached 

at samcorey@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. 

Letters should be around 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. 

Send the article, writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

SAM 
COREY

My heart hurts too

My heart aches. For Lebanon. France. 

Nigeria. Syria. For both the reported 
and unreported deaths and injuries. For 
every wound made in this world from the 
 

incessant violence.

My heart aches. For the brown people who 

may have been safe from those attacks, but 
aren’t safe from the public’s.

I can’t hide that I’m Muslim, so whenever 

an act of terror happens, I can’t mourn in 
peace. I’m stuck in a glass room in which 
all eyes are on me. Even when I’m angry, 
sad and frustrated — having the same feel-
ings you have — I have no space for it in my 
 

glass box.

And when I’m finally able to grasp my 

arms around my emotions and reactions, 
you start to ask.

When you ask me to be “brave” when 

everyone else is encouraged to fear me, you 
are asking for a piece of me. When you ask 
me to apologize for what happened, you are 
asking for a piece of me. When you ask me to 
condemn what happens, you are asking for 
a piece of me. And even as you simply ask, I 
find myself unraveling as you move to collect 
 

the pieces.

Islamophobia is not my paranoia.
Islamophobia is hijabi women being 

denied entry into a store, brown fami-
lies asked to step off of flights for making 
the staff uncomfortable, governors of 31 
states announcing their unwillingness to 
accept Syrian refugees, arson attacks on 
masjids, Muslim and non-Muslim brown 
persons fearing for their lives while 
walking on the street, death threats and 
not being allowed to call your country 
 

your home.

Islamophobia is not me being over-emo-

tional, or self-victimizing or me exaggerating.

Islamophobia is me — having a man I’ve 

never met grab me on the street so that I’m 
forced to listen to him. Islamophobia is me 
— being verbally harassed on the street for 
wearing hijab. Islamophobia is me — ner-

vous for my brown dad traveling on an inter-
national flight in two days. Islamophobia is 
me — always thinking about how much eas-
ier it would be if I took off my hijab. Islamo-
phobia is me — realizing that even if I did, I 
would still be unsafe.

It’s strange to have your beliefs plastered in 

flashy headlines, 140 characters and disturb-
ing images. Religion has always been some-
thing very personal to me, and I never would 
have thought that I would have to defend and 
answer for it so often. Islam was taught to me 
by my parents and community to prioritize 
good character, honesty and humility. And 
when I’m asked to explain myself and my reli-
gion for its “violent,” “barbaric,” “oppressive” 
beliefs, I can’t answer you. Because you aren’t 
talking about my religion.

You’re talking about a group of individu-

als who make up a miniscule percentage 
of those who identify as Muslim. If you are 
going to paint a whole race, region or religion 
with your label of “terrorist,” then you better 
have done your research. And if you did do 
your research, you would realize that you’ve 
made a minority your majority, and that you 
are mistaken. In fact, by far, more Muslims 
have died at the hands of ISIS than any other 
group. ISIS, and other terrorist organiza-
tions, are exactly that — organizations that 
are focused on building political power. They 
are corrupt people who use the pretense of 
religion to achieve their goals.

And that means I will mourn — for the 

hundreds of black and brown people who 
don’t have the benefit of your doubt, whose 
lives do not matter when white lives are lost, 
who are forced out of their homes, who are 
painted in broad strokes and who escape one 
terror only to be attacked with another.

So this is me asking you to stop with the 

Islamophobia and xenophobia. Stop using me 
as your target practice for your frustration. 
Because my heart hurts, too.

Sarah Khan is a Michigan in Color editor.

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

FROM THE DAILY

Indigenous Peoples Day

The University should recognize newly created holiday
T

he Ann Arbor City Council voted unanimously on Nov. 16 
to designate the second Monday of October as Indigenous 
Peoples Day. A couple of days later, the Washtenaw County 

Board of Commissioners followed suit at the request of commissioner 
Yousef Rabhi. The new holiday, meant to replace Columbus Day, was 
the result of collaboration between Councilmember Chuck Warpehoski 
(D–Ward 5) and various local indigenous groups and their allies. The 
decree is obviously a welcome change, as Columbus Day has been a 
topic of controversy, and shows much-warranted consideration of 
native communities here in the Ann Arbor area. However, the county’s 
recognition of the holiday is somewhat diminished by the University’s 
questionable history with its Native American constituents. Now that 
progress is the law of the land, the University should follow suit by 
recognizing Indigenous Peoples Day and set the tone for a new era of 
alliance with those community members who deserve our respect.

The University was founded (both in its 

original location in Detroit and its current 
location in Ann Arbor) on what was once 
Native American land with the permission of 
the 1817 Treaty of Fort Meigs. But in the years 
following its conception, the school has done 
little to honor this grant.

Additionally, 
students 
showed 
their 

prejudiced attitudes toward Native Americans 
in tasteless club traditions like those of the 
Order of Angell — a University organization 
(which changed its name from the pseudo-
tribal “Michigamua” in 2006) with a long, 
murky past rooted in blatant insensitivity. 
In its heyday, the formerly secret society 
initiated its members with public rituals 
involving sacred Native American regalia and 
religious items, such as peace pipes, drums 
and totems. Acts such as these were called out 
as unacceptable by not only the indigenous 
community in Ann Arbor, but also various 
organizations on campus. Having undergone 
so much intense scrutiny, the Order fully 
ceased these despicable activities by 1989.

Further, 
University 
possession 
of 

Native American artifacts has also been a 
point of contention in the past. In March 
2008, members of the Saginaw Chippewa 
tribe requested rights to what Museum 
of Anthropological Archaeology officials 
deemed 
“unidentifiable” 
artifacts, 
but 

because ownership of ambiguously cultured 
objects was not ruled illegal by the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
Act of 1990, their efforts were futile. It was 
not until two years later in 2010 that the 
federal court became involved and demanded 
the University return the remains to their 
rightful place.

With 
these 
instances 
in 
mind, 
the 

University should take full advantage of 
this opportunity to make amends with its 
neighbors. A good start would be to eradicate 
the recognition of Columbus Day from 
University calendars and planners; an even 
better effort would be to recognize local 
tribes like those of the Three Fires — Ojibwe, 
Odawa and Potawatami — by hosting a day or 
more of events in collaboration with them.

The University of California, Berkeley, 

for example, holds a day-long festival that 
features an exhibition and gourd dancing, as 
well as an “Indian market” with handmade 
products from local tribes. Simply bringing 
in native speakers to share their experiences 
with the student body would also be a step in 
the right direction.

The Native American community in Ann 

Arbor is essential to the history of both the 
city and the University. Recognition of their 
influence is commendable, but deliberate 
effort by the University to acknowledge and 
appreciate them is warranted if we are to 
celebrate this new holiday with integrity. 
Given our disreputable history, it is the least 
we can do. 

SARAH KHAN | VIEWPOINT

