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 — Monday, March 28, 2016

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, 

Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, 

Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, 
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, 

Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, 

Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

D

uring 
Hillary 
Clinton’s 

victory 
speech 
after 

winning the South Carolina 

primary 
on 

February 27, she 
went bold:

“I 
know 
it 

sometimes 
seems 
a 
little 

odd for someone 
running 
for 

president these 
days, 
in 
this 

time, to say we 
need more love 
and kindness in 
America,” 
she 

said. “But I’m telling you from the 
bottom of my heart, we do. We do.”

This wasn’t the first time I had 

heard about Clinton’s desire to talk 
about needing to instill love and 
kindness in America. BuzzFeed’s 
Ruby Cramer wrote a lengthy 
feature titled “Hillary Clinton 
wants to talk to you about love and 
kindness” at the end of January, 
and it’s worth a read. But this 
speech was the first time I had seen 
Clinton discuss love and kindness 
on a national stage.

We could argue for hours as to 

whether Clinton is the right person 
to be delivering this message. After 
all, she did vote for the unjustified 
Iraq War, doesn’t support the total 
abolishment of the death penalty 
across the nation and once referred 
to kids in gangs, presumably Black, 
as “super predators.” Of course I’m 
setting aside many of the efforts 
she’s made to bolster the rights 
of minority communities, but it’s 
hard to argue these three things 
represent decisions made with 
love and kindness. To me, these 
instances represent a failure to 
value humanity.

But no matter what you think 

about Clinton, her message of love 
and kindness is one we all need to 
hear — and internalize. I know I’m 
not breaking this news, but anger 
and 
nastiness 
has 
permeated 

every corner of this election. It’s 
simply out of hand.

The 
venom 
tossed 
by 
(gag) 

Republican 
front-runner 
Donald 

Trump, who I’m sure has proclaimed 
himself to be the nicest man in 
the world, is gross, despicable and 
disheartening (feel free to insert your 
own adjective). The violence at his 
rallies, which he absolutely incites — 
don’t let him tell you otherwise — has 
me questioning what exactly is going 
on in America.

And 
the 
other 
remaining 

Republican 
candidates 
besides 

Ohio 
Gov. 
John 
Kasich 
are 

contributors to this problem. And 
to a lesser extent, the angry tone 
of Bernie Sanders’ message can be 
exhausting to listen to sometimes 
(the #BirdieSanders moment was 
pretty awesome, though).

People have a right to be angry 

about the current realities of the 
United States. In fact, they should 

be. Our economy is rigged to 
favor those at the top. We aren’t 
doing enough for lower-income 
communities. Institutional racism 
is alive and well. It’s a disaster that 
we don’t have paid family leave and 
equal pay for women. Our campaign 
finance system is out of control. I 
could go on, but the point remains: 
These are legitimate issues to lose 
sleep over and have steam coming 
out of ears.

And it’s not that I need Barney or 

Big Bird to explain these outrages 
in song and dance. But at a certain 
point, the presidential candidates 
and the people of the United States 
need to recognize the limitations 

of anger. This isn’t me saying that 
the protests should stop, because 
given how much traction Trump 
is gaining by winning one primary 
after another, they’re still needed. 
I just think we have to realize that 
when it’s time to write the policy 
and fix our wrongs, anger won’t 
solve these problems. Anger only 
identifies them. And nastiness? 
There’s no place for it (I’m talking 
to you, Big Donald).

The funny (actually not that 

funny) thing is that love and 
kindness aren’t ingrained in the 
United States’ values. After all, 
we were founded on violence. 
We owned slaves for hundreds of 
years where plenty of places today 
are actively trying to bury that 
part of our history. Lawmakers 
actively wrote policy to damage 
minority communities. And we’ve 
committed plenty of war crimes.

So instilling love and kindness into 

our national mindset would actually 
be a radical idea.

Now, of course, we all have 

different definitions of what love 
and kindness means. I’ll start by 
giving mine. Love and kindness is a 
belief in the humanity of all people, 
that we are all capable of success 
given the opportunity. Love and 
kindness is a belief in the power 
of community — the belief that in 
order to have a just society, we have 
to look out for each other’s needs 
and not just our own.

I know what I’ve laid out is 

idealistic, and frankly there are 
plenty of times when toughness is 
absolutely needed. But at the simplest 
level, love and kindness is another 
way of saying, “Let’s not screw each 
other over.”

You may have a definition that 

doesn’t quite jive with mine. Or at all.

But I’m sure whatever it is, it’d 

be a lot better than what we have 
right now.

 
—Derek Wolfe can be reached 

at dewolfe@umich.edu.

A little more love and kindness

Clinton’s message of 
love and kindness is 
one we all need to 

hear and internalize.

D

espite my opposition, the University of 
Michigan announced two weeks ago 
that former New York City mayor and 

uber-capitalist 
Michael 

Bloomberg will speak at 
Spring 
Commencement 

and receive an honorary 
degree.

In 
their 
proposal, 

University 
President 

Mark 
Schlissel 
and 

the 
Honorary 
Degree 

Committee wrote, “Mr. 
Bloomberg … you are 
a role model for civic 
leaders, 
students, 
and 

others who aspire to be 
agents of change. The 
University of Michigan celebrates your 
storied career and contributions to business, 
philanthropy, and effective government, 
and is proud to present to you the honorary 
degree, Doctor of Laws.”

Following 
the 
announcement, 
The 

Michigan 
Daily 
published 
an 
article 

elaborating 
the 
argument 
behind 
the 

University’s 
above 
claims 
(e.g., 
that 

Bloomberg is “a role model for civil leaders,” 
etc.). The article described Bloomberg’s 
business accomplishments, such as founding 
the 
major 
Wall 
Street 
data-tracking 

company, Bloomberg L.P., as well as his 
political accomplishments, such as creating 
a $4.4 billion budget surplus during his 
mayoralty. Though the article briefly noted 
that Bloomberg and the New York Police 
Department’s stop-and-frisk practice was 
“received with controversy,” it failed to 
explore the reasons for the controversy.

Readers of the Daily have not received the 

benefit of any sort of dissident reporting on 
this issue, such as hearing the opinions of 
students and faculty who might be opposed 
to Bloomberg’s invitation, and/or reviewing 
the problematic portions of Bloomberg’s 
record. Journalists, even on the small scale 
of a college newspaper, have a responsibility 
not to simply support those in power (e.g., the 
University administration, Board of Regents, 
etc.), but rather to check their authority with 
reporting that complicates, problematizes 
and, when appropriate, contradicts the 
establishment narrative.

Until now, the paper has not published any 

article or op-ed exploring why Bloomberg 
might not be a good choice for commencement 
speaker and honorary degree recipient. The 
reasons that form this dissenting opinion 
abound, but they are apparently uninteresting 
to my colleagues.

When we choose to model ourselves after 

someone, we presumably already resemble 
this person to some extent. Paying attention 
to his personal identity, we notice that 
Bloomberg is a super-rich, old white man, an 
identity that literally no University students 
share. The University esteems Bloomberg as a 
role model because he resembles the rich, old 
white men who have run this University since 
the time of its inception.

In our white supremacist patriarchal 

capitalist society, a role model is by 
definition a person with an identity like 
Bloomberg’s. Hence, within the University’s 
consciousness, a working-class woman of 
color, for example, cannot qualify as a role 
model, and hence isn’t invited to speak at 
commencement. So despite its incessant 
protestations that it highly values diversity, 
the University decided not to actualize 
that supposed principle, opting instead to 
continue its long history of supporting the 
voices of rich, old white men over the voices 
of young people, women, people of color and 
poor and working classes.

I also find it incredible that anyone 

familiar with Bloomberg’s record as mayor 
of New York City could see fit to honor him 

with a “Doctor of Laws” degree. The Daily’s 
article noted that Bloomberg served three 
terms as mayor of New York City, but it didn’t 
note that Bloomberg changed the term-limit 
law during his second term as mayor so that 
he could serve for a third.

When it looked like a fellow NYC 

billionaire might obstruct Bloomberg’s 
effort 
to 
maintain 
power, 
Bloomberg 

promised his would-be opponent a seat on 
an influential board in exchange for his 
consent. It worked, and Bloomberg revised 
the term-limit law and was eventually 
elected for a third term — a problematic 
twist in Bloomberg’s “storied career” as a 
“civic leader,” but maybe one inconvenient 
for the University as they coronate him an 
honorary doctor of the law. (Maybe the 
more apt honorary degree for Bloomberg 
would be “surgeon of the law.”)

Perhaps the most glaring blemish on 

Bloomberg’s mayoral record is the New York 
Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practice 
(aka stop-question-frisk), whereby police 
officers who suspect someone (usually an 
African-American or Hispanic person) of 
committing a crime may stop, question and 
then frisk them. Critics of stop-and-frisk 
emphasize, like I just did, how this policing 
practice disparately impacts people of color, 
both in the number of stops and consequent 
arrests, arguing that stop-and-frisk codifies 
racial profiling and amounts to a campaign of 
harassment against Black and brown people.

Bloomberg has defended the practice by 

pointing out that Blacks and Hispanics are 
far more likely to commit crimes, suggesting 
that racial profiling might therefore be 
a legitimate policing practice. This is an 
example of institutional racism and an 
instance of the law and its police oppressing 
people of color while in fact rhetorically 
denying their oppressiveness. Stop-and-frisk 
should disqualify Bloomberg as a doctor of 
the law, assuming that a doctor of the law 
should value things like civil rights and 
oppose things like institutional racism.

Lastly, one might confusedly conjecture 

that the University ought, to some degree, 
express the will of the state it supposedly 
serves. But alas, no. In the very same month 
that the majority of Michigan’s Democratic 
primary voters chose Sen. Bernie Sanders (D 
–

Vt.), the staunch opponent of the billionaire 
class, as their party’s nominee, the University 
invited Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire Wall 
Street capitalist. The University could’ve 
chosen someone fighting against the current 
political-economic establishment, the one 
that many graduating seniors will soon 
suffer under full time as young, debt-rich 
wage slaves. Instead, the University chose 
to invite a fierce market fundamentalist 
firmly embedded within this country’s (not 
to mention the world’s) politico-economic 
establishment.

In sum, we might have serious reservations 

about Michael Bloomberg as this year’s 
Spring Commencement speaker, not to 
mention reservations about lauding him 
as our role model for civic leadership and 
affecting change.

When 
the 
University 
administration 

writes that “The University of Michigan 
celebrates 
(Bloomberg’s) 
storied 
career 

and contributions to business,” and then 
the Daily corroborates their argument as 
for why, dissenting opinions like mine (i.e., 
the opinions of University students who 
decidedly do not celebrate Bloomberg’s 
career or contributions but instead condemn 
them) are erased. Maybe these dissident 
opinions are, on the whole, wrong, but they 
deserve some consideration, as do the less 
flattering aspects of Bloomberg’s record. 

—Zak Witus can be reached 

at zakwitus@umich.edu.

In opposition to Bloomberg

ZAK 
WITUS

DEREK 
WOLFE

M

arch 10, 2014, will be a 
day I never forget. After 
waiting four years to see 

my favorite band, 
Arcade 
Fire, 

perform 
live, 

they were finally 
coming to play 
at The Palace of 
Auburn Hills for 
a stop on their 
Reflektor 
tour. 

My friend Ethan 
and 
I 
bought 

tickets 
and 
I 

drove so fast to 
the Palace after 
school 
that 
I 

broke my record time driving there 
by 15 minutes. However, because I 
accidentally bought the wrong ticket, 
I wasn’t able to get one of those yellow 
wristbands that allowed you to stand 
on the floor, looking up on the stage. 
I told Ethan to go have the time of 
his life, and he descended toward the 
stage while I settled with the most 
expensive ticket in the lower bowl.

Initially I was frustrated that I 

couldn’t let Win Butler’s guitar burst 
my eardrums from up close, but I was 
even more anxious that I was around 
so many people. I was surrounded 
by strangers with no one to talk to. 
The band asked that everyone wear 
either a costume or formal attire to 
the show. I took my coat off revealing 
a Where’s Waldo outfit and saw 
everyone else in dresses and dress 
clothes. How ironic it was that I 
wanted someone to find me.

Once Arcade Fire started to play, 

I couldn’t help but sing along. These 
were the songs that my heart had 
been humming for years (I know 
all 69 of their songs by heart). But 
my mind was hesitant to dance 
when my body wanted to cut loose. 
I looked next to both sides of me 
and saw two women in their late 
20s and a middle-aged man looking 
back at me. We danced and lost our 
voices singing and I felt awesome 
being able to be myself around 
complete strangers.

I thought that was the moment 

I broke out of my shell, but the 
reality is that I’m still in the 

process of emerging out of it.

Like my hesitancy to dance at 

the concert, I have a hesitancy to be 
fully myself, displaying my complete 
personality around people I don’t 
know as well. The people I know well 
and feel I can completely trust see my 
inner layers — the layers that express 
my religion, show how I convey 
feelings through poetry and do weird 
things like churn out fake details 
about a beverage after wafting it 
like a sommelier (“oak after-tones, 
French, from the southern Rhône 
valley, circa 1985”).

If the people I am close to enjoy 

peeling away at these layers and 
learning more about me, I should 
be able to do this easily around 
everyone I meet. But I have 
struggled with thinking what I 
have to say won’t be worthwhile. 
The introverted parts of me have 
caused me to be quiet, sometimes 
making me feel out of place around 
a lot of people, the inner dialogue 
I’m having with myself giving 

me more anxiety because I’m not 
speaking.

I’ve always thought that getting 

to know people is a process, and it 
is. But I’ve been thinking about it 
in the wrong way. I’ve saved more 
of my personality for closer friends, 
presenting 
a 
held-back 
version 

of myself to others that is more 
reserved, quieter and less prone to 
sharing my emotions. I have always 
wanted to share the deeper parts of 
my life with people until I know them 
very well — as I should. But there’s 
nothing wrong with letting other 
people see the wannabe-sommelier, 
air-guitaring, dance-loving me.

Sure, if I reveal more of who 

I am initially, people may think 
I’m weird, but the reward far 
outweighs the risk. If I don’t 
allow my mind to be so reserved 
and watered down, I have more 
opportunities to build friendships 
and show people that I am 
interested in what they have to 
say. I enjoy getting to know people, 
hearing about what intrigues and 
excites them, but sometimes that 
doesn’t come across because I 
don’t speak up.

I may have missed out on 

opportunities to learn more about 
others, but there will be plenty 
more. As I’m breaking out of my 
shell, I’m attempting to be more 
outgoing and let go of the reins 
that have slowed me down. I don’t 
want to filter myself so much. 
I want to go on adventures and 
try new things. I want to say yes 
instead of saying no and retreating 
to being by myself.

Just over two years have passed 

since the Arcade Fire concert. 
Instead of being a high schooler next 
to two women in their late 20s and 
a middle-aged man, I’m in college, 
surrounded by extroverts, and I want 
to be outgoing and free like them. 
The process won’t be easy, and I’ll 
always be introverted in a sense, but 
I’m confident that I can start saying 
what’s on my mind no matter who is 
around because that’s what I want 
to do. I want to be the same person 
whether I’m next to my best friend or 
an acquaintance.

We introverts can still take time 

to recharge. But if we’re having 
trouble being outgoing, we have the 
freedom to and can be ourselves 
without fear. It can be very out of 
our comfort zones, but I believe we 
can learn the most about ourselves 
from and by being around others as 
opposed to alone.

I’ve felt alone and different in 

a crowd of people. But this at this 
time in my life, I won’t dress up like 
Waldo. Instead, I’ll always try to just 
be my real self.

 
—Chris Crowder can be 

reached at ccrowd@umich.edu.

Not Waldo anymore

As I am breaking 
out of my shell, I’m 

attempting to be more 
outgoing and let go of 

the reins. 

CHRIS 
CROWDER

ANNIE TURPIN/ Daily