Water and Sewage Department to the Flint River
as an interim source. While it is true that Flint’s
city council did democratically approve the
switch to the KWA, there is no evidence show-
ing the decision to use the Flint River as an inter-
im source was made in any democratic manner,
and instead was made by Snyder’s appointee.
This misleading statement is characteristic of
the governor’s handling of the disaster in Flint.
Despite a majority of Michigan voters in 2012
voting to overturn Public Act 4, Snyder signed
a modified version of the law a few weeks later,
giving more options to local municipalities
declared insolvent than just emergency man-
agement. But the choice of whether or not stay
under emergency management was not given
to the people of Flint or other Michigan cities
previously under emergency management prior
to the modified law. They were left under the
authority of whomever Snyder chose to appoint,
with no control over the actions of their own
local governments. When Snyder chose to defy
the will of the people who elected him, he sig-
naled that the responsibility for what would
happen next would fall solely on his shoulders.
Now it’s January 2016, and Snyder is just
beginning to deal with the consequences of his
inaction. It has been a year since Flint was found
in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act, yet
Snyder’s appointee Darnell Earley told Flint citi-
zens it would be too expensive to switch back to
Detroit water. It’s been six months since the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency expressed
concern over lead levels in Flint’s water, yet
Snyder’s administration told everyone to relax
in July 2015. It’s been four months since pedia-
trician Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha raised alarm
about rising lead levels in vulnerable Flint chil-
dren’s blood, yet Snyder’s administration has
just begun to mobilize a significant response to
the crisis, with President Barack Obama most
recently agreeing to declare the situation a state
of emergency.
Snyder’s inaction on this issue — despite
forcefully installing himself as the only elected
official responsible for the people of Flint — has
left us with no confidence that he can solve this
catastrophe. Snyder has demonstrated repeat-
edly that this was not an issue on his mind until
professionals and the media brought it to nation-
al attention.
From the time Snyder entered office in
2011, he has continually demonstrated that his
administration’s number-one priority would
be to save the state money, apparently even
at the cost of lives. Upon taking office, Snyder
signed the most expansive emergency man-
ager program in the nation. Before the new
law, Michigan’s emergency manager program
functioned like most other states’ in that it
allowed state governments to appoint repre-
sentatives to oversee municipal finances for
cases in which they became insolvent. But soon
after taking office, Snyder made Michigan the
only state that allows the state government to
appoint a single individual to take control over
entire municipalities, requiring city councils
and mayors to get approval from the governor’s
appointees for all actions. These appointees
could control everything in municipalities,
from firefighter’s contracts to sewage mainte-
nance. They serve solely at the pleasure of the
governor, making them the optimal opportu-
nity for Snyder to implement his cost-cutting
agenda anywhere he saw fit, with no interven-
tion from municipal governments.
The crisis in Flint is a direct result of the
subversion of municipal democracy under this
law. Elected representatives of the people of
Flint might have had the forethought to realize
that running a cheaper water source through
lead pipes 19 times more corrosive than the
previous source might not be the best for their
constituency’s health. Flint’s elected represen-
tatives would have switched back to Detroit
water when residents started complaining of
foul-tasting water and rashes. They might have
realized that charging people for water that
is unsafe to drink, and then shutting off water
when residents didn’t pay, might not make for
the best governance, yet this is still somehow
actually happening. But Snyder’s appointed rep-
resentatives did none of these things, because
the only thing they were accountable for was the
spreadsheet showing Flint was saving money.
That’s not to say no blame is to be shared
with Flint’s government. Despite being power-
less, Flint’s mayor and city council could have
been far more vocal in bringing attention to
the plight of Flint, and not could have not dis-
missed concerns over water quality. But while
accountability in the Governor’s Mansion has
yet to come, Flint’s government rejected its
Incumbent Mayor Dayne Walling in favor of
current Mayor Karen Weaver last November.
However, despite being under financial emer-
gency for more than four years, the apparent
cost-saving emergency management system
still has not restored democracy to Flint. Flint’s
newly elected mayor still lacks her full author-
ity, because the city has still been controlled
by a Receivership Transition Advisory Board, a
board made up of unelected state and local offi-
cials designed to transition the city back to self-
governance, since last April.
That leaves only one elected official to be held
accountable for the actions that have plagued
Flint: Snyder. If a local mayor or council member
took actions that led to the poisoning of his or
her constituents, they would at the very least be
denied another term. The only option Michigan
residents have to hold Snyder properly account-
able, since he is serving his second of two terms,
is to recall him from office. Michigan law allows
a governor to be recalled provided a petition
signed by 25 percent of voters in the last guber-
natorial election to put the issue on the ballot.
There is just one problem: The bipartisan
Board of Canvassers, the board appointed by
the governor to supervise elections, has rejected
multiple petitions from Detroit pastor Angelo
Scott Brown on grounds from purely techni-
cal to that the actions Snyder has been accused
of happened in his first term, and therefore
he cannot be held responsible for them in his
second. We find such logic outrageous and
unbecoming of a democratic society. There
shouldn’t be a statute of limitations on an elect-
ed official’s exploitation of a vulnerable popula-
tion for political gain. We call on the Board of
Canvassers to accept one of the many currently
pending petitions to right this wrong.
From the time Snyder entered office, he has
demonstrated a lack of regard for the demo-
cratic process and has left Flint powerless.
Now, Michiganders must be allowed to use
their vote to give the people of Flint justice
for the life-changing choice they never got to
make.
Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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, January 20, 2016
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, 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
O
n Dec. 3, along with several of my
peers, I attended a fireside chat with
University Pres-
ident Mark Schlissel.
This was meant to be a
forum for us to ask him
questions — anything we
wanted to hear him talk
about. Schlissel opened
the session by describing
these meetings as the
most effective way for
him to “feel the pulse” of
the student body.
However, after leav-
ing the chat and reflect-
ing on the evening, I
realized he had not actu-
ally been interested in
listening to our words, or even in seriously
considering our questions. Instead, Schlissel
was there as a mouthpiece to dictate Univer-
sity policy.
One
of
Schlissel’s
most
puppet-like
moments was when he tried to answer my
question, which concerned the Divest and
Invest campaign that has garnered attention
on campus over the past year or so. My ques-
tion to Schlissel went something like this: In
continuing to invest heavily (around $1 bil-
lion) in the fossil fuel industry, Schlissel has
to be considering the inherent utility of fossil
fuels, especially for a massive research hub
like the University. Well then, does Schlissel
only intend to divest that large sum once that
utility has vanished? If so, wouldn’t the state
of our climate have already devolved at that
point past any hope of salvation?
The answer I got went something like this:
The University is, in fact working actively to
combat climate change. Schlissel mentioned
the recent $80 million (not much when com-
pared to $1 billion) investment in a wind
turbine, as well as other green philanthropy
efforts, the installation of the Graham Sus-
tainability Institute and environmental
studies courses that “undergrads like me”
can take.
Initially, nothing that he was saying irked
me — this all changed when he declared that
Divest and Invest wastes its time trying to
change the University’s investment portfo-
lio. He argued that the way the University
spends its money is not where the real change
happens — it happens, according to Schlissel,
at City Hall, by the lawmakers. City Hall, he
told me, is where we should turn our atten-
tion, because the University’s finances would
not change anything; divesting would be
largely a “symbolic” effort. Instead of focus-
ing on this symbolism, he argued, students
ought to focus on changing the laws them-
selves.
I have several responses. First, in 2013,
the city of Ann Arbor already voted in favor
of divestment. The vote was spurred by the
work of activists such as my peers working
for the Divest campaign. So, much of the battle
at City Hall has already been done. The next
step for student activists ought to focus on our
Schlissel dismisses divestment
ISAIAH
ZEAVIN-
MOSS
S
ounds pretty racist to me” – @
Sporty1546
This was the response I
received just minutes after tweeting
that I would be attending a national
solidarity event, aimed at ending
racial injustices on college campus-
es, hosted by the Black Liberation
Collective.
I wish I could say this remark was
an outlier. That it was of few I can
recall over the past six years I’ve
attended the University. Instead,
what my experience has been — a
sentiment that is clearly shared by
Black students nationwide — is that
this type of misinformed hostility is
commonplace.
As a Black woman, I have two
salient, visible identities that cause
me to differ from the vast majority
of people in power in this country.
Though I can’t isolate one identity
from the other — I will never expe-
rience life as a woman who isn’t
Black or as a Black person who isn’t
a woman — it continually seems to
me that larger society has compas-
sion and empathy for only one of
these struggles.
At Michigan, we have several
residence halls and living commu-
nities exclusive to women. There
are committed student groups,
Greek organizations and health
clinics whose purposes are attend-
ing to the needs of women — many
of whom receive financial support
from the University. Societally, we
create TV shows and movies to
reveal the growth and support that
can arise from close-knit, wom-
en-only friendships. We raise our
daughters in Girl Scouts and teach
them to keep a “girl code,” recog-
nizing that building and maintain-
ing close friendships with other
girls is essential. We let them have
girls-only parties, acknowledging
that introducing others into the mix
changes the chemistry of the inter-
actions. The concept of having small
aspects of our world dedicated for
women only simply isn’t taboo.
But when Black people crave and
carve out those same avenues for
ourselves, it’s attacked. Considered
exclusive. Unfair. Counter to racial
harmony. “That’s not what Dr. King
wanted…” they say.
While everyone isn’t on the same
page about gender-based oppres-
sions, many, if not most, people view
disparities in success across gender
groups attributable to the world
we grew up in, not to individuals
themselves. We generally agree
that although born with equivalent
potential, historical precedent and
our present culture erodes away
opportunities available for people
who aren’t men. But that same view
— the view that all groups originate
with the same capacity, but some
are subject to forces outside of their
control that prevent them from hav-
ing equal participation in society
— isn’t extended to Black people.
We don’t get Lean-in circles, we get
we get death threats. We don’t get
a #62MillionGirls campaign, we
get told, “I wish these … protesters
were this passionate about looking
for jobs, education and avoiding teen
pregnancy” (@RWSurferGirl). Our
government and universities aren’t
saying, “It’s on Us,” they’re saying
“it’s on you.”
People think if they can’t see or
conceptualize
racial
advantages,
there must not be any to be seen.
And honestly, I can see how that
would happen. Just as health is a
crown that only the sick can see, the
benefits of being white are rarely
visible to those who receive them.
That’s the thing about privilege —
it’s about all of the adjustments you
never need to make, the hesitations
you never have, the questions you
never need to ask yourself. I under-
stand that. But what I don’t under-
stand — and frankly, what I have
little sympathy toward — is why,
after being informed, people are so
slow on the uptake.
From our Black Student Union’s
#BBUM — Being Black at the Uni-
versity of Michigan — campaign to
the Ferguson protests to the events
at the University of Missouri: the
hunger strike, football players refus-
ing to play and numerous demon-
strations, my community has given
ample evidence as to the many injus-
tices we face. Yet it falls on blind
eyes and deaf ears.
We as a society recognize that
certain groups need sacred spaces.
We know that there are benefits that
those groups get from being in com-
munities with one another, and we
allow that. We accept that people
who have commonalities in an area
so intrinsic to who they are need
and flourish in spaces separate from
the watchful eyes of people who just
won’t get it. That’s why we have pro-
fessional women’s organizations,
Alcoholics Anonymous and sexual
assault survivor support groups.
Not because the people in them are
broken or weak or less-than, but
because we know they are going
through some things that someone
who doesn’t face those challenges
just can’t understand. Life is harder
for them in a million ways that an
outsider can’t imagine, and they
need to feel safe to talk about and
strategize around that.
Unless, of course, they’re Black.
If they’re Black, then a solidarity
event is discriminatory and moving
this country backward. If they’re
Black, it’s conspiracy brewing, and
seeing things that aren’t really
there. If they’re Black, organizing
is rioting and promoting violence. If
they’re Black —
Well, if they’re Black, that’s where
you’ll find me. Because with them —
with us — is about the only place I feel
welcome right now.
—Michigan in Color is the
Daily’s designated space for and by
students of color at the University of
Michigan. To contribute your voice
or find out more about MiC, e-mail
michiganincolor@umich.edu.
“I can’t isolate one identity
from the other — I will
never experience life as a
woman who isn’t Black or
as a Black person who isn’t
a woman...”
Sounds pretty racist to me
RYAN MOODY | MICHIGAN IN COLOR
campus. But surely Schlissel already
knows that — clearly he just wanted
to evade my question, which probed
at direct action the University could
take in response to climate change,
an issue that the global commu-
nity is beginning to approach with
increasing levels of urgency.
In his response to my question,
Schlissel did articulate that divest-
ment as a symbolic action was
among the “strongest” arguments
he had heard in this debate. He went
on: “If you could convince me that
the University of Michigan shifting
its investment portfolio away from
fossil fuel companies would actu-
ally hasten our transition to renew-
ables, then I’d think about it.”
Here’s how divestment helps
speed up this transition: Convinc-
ing people to live more sustainable,
less wasteful lives is only possible if
those same people live in a culture
where that lifestyle feels popular, or
as if they are a part of a new, exciting
trend. In other words, there needs
to be a fundamental cultural shift
in the direction of sustainability; an
excellent first place to start for that
shift, here on campus, would be the
University divesting from the fossil
fuel industry. The symbolism and
the transition are integrally linked,
and Schlissel misses this crucial
point in the standard response he
has been giving to students — myself
included — throughout his tenure.
I took issue with another part
of Schlissel’s response — specifi-
cally, his telling me that students
should not focus on the campus cli-
mate around this issue, but should
instead advocate for laws that we
agree with. This dismissal of the
divestment activism on this campus
contradicts the fundamental notion
— shared among all of us, I believe
— that this University is meant to be
a home. And in any home, the chil-
dren — we students — ought to be
able to fight for the change they wish
to enact, to be able to negotiate with
their parents — the administration —
freely and honestly. They should not
be dismissed.
Furthermore, Schlissel and I dis-
agree most fundamentally about the
meaning of money and the impact it
can have. Divestment is crucial and
worthwhile, even though the Uni-
versity will never be able to single-
handedly shut down the fossil fuel
industry. If we divest, at least we
would not explicitly support it. In
the famous “Civil Disobedience”, an
essay that has guided social move-
ments throughout the 19th and 20th
centuries, Henry David Thoreau dis-
cusses the power our spending holds,
and how it can have a profound
effect on the society we inhabit. Fur-
thermore, Thoreau argues that any
citizen has the power to advocate for
the change they believe in. There are
actions we can all take to fight back
— specifically, we all control how we
spend our money, and we control
which corporations to support. If we
ignore this power we have, not only
are we wasting an opportunity to
fight, but also, most crucially, we are
complicit in the harmful activities
of the politically and economically
dominant groups.
Let me just be clear: Schlissel
understands the logic of divest-
ment as a means of civil disobedi-
ence. The problem must therefore
be that Schlissel and the moneyed
interests he represents are sim-
ply unwilling to divest from fossil
fuels, perhaps because of their own
interest in profit-making.
Instead of seeming to dismiss
this movement — and, by exten-
sion, the work of the students he is
supposed to serve — as a waste of
time, Schlissel ought to heed Tho-
reau’s words. In our case, the Uni-
versity has $1 billion invested in an
industry that is killing our planet,
acting without any consideration
for the scientific consensus that
climate change shares a direct link
to human activity. The University
is consciously complicit, then, in
the proliferation of an industry
driven by ignorance, destruction and
greed.
Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be
reached at izeavinm@umich.edu.
“Convincing people to
live more sustainable,
less wasteful lives is only
possible if those same
people live in a culture
where that lifestyle feels
popular, or as if they are
a part of a new, exciting
trend.”
RECALL From Page 1A