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