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 — Friday, Sept. 9, 2016
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit
letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words
while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name
and University affiliation
to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
FROM THE DAILY
Safe spaces don’t stop free speech
I
n a letter to incoming freshmen on Aug. 24, John Ellison, University
of Chicago’s dean of students, denounced the use of safe spaces and
trigger warnings on the college campus, writing that they impede
the ability of faculty and students to engage in free speech — an integral
component of the educational experience. This letter attracted both
support and dissent, reigniting a discussion at universities nationwide.
This
week,
University
of
Michigan
President
Mark
Schlissel
joined
the
conversation, addressing the student body in
an op-ed. While Schlissel’s letter discusses
the importance of respect and diversity
fostering freedom of speech on campus, his
op-ed did not use the terms “safe spaces”
and “trigger warnings” specifically. These
are two concepts that University professors
implement in their classrooms — both in
syllabi and during class itself. Yes, the
debate over whether these two concepts are
productive or detrimental to free speech
is politicized and widespread nationally.
But, most importantly, students are directly
influenced by how their universities choose
to respond to the debate. Just this past
March, hate speech on the Diag catalyzed
a widespread debate over when speech
should be protected on campus. Therefore,
the University has a responsibility not just
to promote the Expect Respect campaign, a
noble initiative, but to respond directly to the
use of these two controversial terms.
The Michigan Daily does not support
any sort of policy requiring safe spaces and
trigger warnings. At a public university such
as ours, institutionalizing or creating policy
including these terms would be a violation
of the First Amendment. However, the
University should make clear that faculty
have the individual right to use these terms
to facilitate freer, more inclusive discussion.
Trigger warnings and safe spaces are
not an opposition to free speech. The terms
“trigger warning” and “safe space” have
become some of the most contentious phrases
concerning student life and, as a result,
they have developed negative connotations.
Ellison’s letter, like many critics of trigger
warnings and safe spaces, functions under the
assumption students use trigger warnings as
excuses to get out of engaging with difficult
material and safe spaces as means to avoid
hearing opinions that differ from their own.
This is entirely untrue.
We understand trigger warnings as
any message that helps students who may
have experienced trauma or distress brace
themselves before addressing an issue
that, when mentioned, could elicit a strong
emotional or psychological response —
not ones that simply make the students
uncomfortable. In turn, the trigger warning
creates a safe space where students feel
their experiences have been honored and
respected. These two concepts are ofen
conflated, though it is important to note
the distiction between the two: Trigger
warnings can help create safe spaces, but
safe spaces can be created by other means
as well.
Trigger warnings and safe spaces do not
negate the opportunity for free speech;
rather, they provide an environment where
all people are equipped to face — not avoid
— topics that could cause them emotional
distress and are some of the toughest issues
of today. When a student has been medically
diagnosed with a mental illness like PTSD,
for example, a trigger warning is a vital way
to encourage and enforce that the student
enters a challenging discussion and adds
his or her experience to the free exchange
of ideas. With just a mention of upcoming
challenging material, students who would
have otherwise been triggered by a past
traumatic or otherwise distressing event
— which may have previously caused them
to remove themselves from a classroom or
conversation — can now mentally prepare
themselves, separating their past experiences
from the subject matter at hand.
Large educational institutions like our
University are indispensable hubs of free
speech. This hub is only bettered when
everyone on campus is prepared to participate
fully in the free exchange of ideas.
Where Trump and Clinton meet
MAX
RYSZTAK
A
s we get closer to the polls
opening on Election Day, it’s
easy to see Donald Trump
and
Hillary
Clinton
don’t
agree on much.
But after recent-
ly listening to
the two candi-
dates talk about free trade in major
economic speeches, it’s clear the
candidates have similar views on
this issue.
Take the Trans-Pacific Part-
nership, a multinational trade
deal between the United States
and
numerous
countries
that
increases trade and reduces tar-
iffs, resulting in a massive trade
deal with global economic impli-
cations. Donald Trump argues,
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is
the greatest danger yet.”
Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton now
agrees with Trump’s stance after
previously supporting the deal. She
said at a campaign event in Warren,
Mich., “I will stop any trade deal
that kills jobs or holds down wages,
including the Trans-Pacific Part-
nership. … I oppose it now … and I’ll
oppose it as president.”
It sounds like Clinton and Trump
might agree on something, but
unfortunately, they are both wrong
on the actual policy.
The economic benefits of free
trade deals like TPP are well
known. The Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, a federal agency
specializing in American trade pol-
icy, argues that TPP reduces taxes
to make U.S. farmers and manufac-
turers more productive, increases
the exports of American-made
products and strengthens middle-
class wages and jobs. Most econo-
mists and researchers agree that
TPP makes the United States more
competitive in Asia, which is key to
repositioning ourselves as a major
economic player in the region.
Countless policy experts directly
contradict the candidates’ state-
ments on this trade deal, which
demonstrates the candidates’ mis-
understanding, or politicization, of
the issue.
Why
should
students
care,
though? Most Michigan students
don’t think about trade when it
comes to voting. But they should.
Beyond free trade’s economic
benefits, especially in the state of
Michigan, trade correlates with a
cleaner environment — a top issue
for Michigan students and millen-
nials nationwide.
According to The Heritage Foun-
dation’s Index of Economic Free-
dom,
countries’
environmental
performance, a measurement of the
environmental health of a country,
increases as they become more eco-
nomically free. Economist Nico-
las Loris writes, “Freer economies
have access to more products and
technologies that make our lives
healthier and the environment
cleaner. … As a country grows eco-
nomically, it increases the financial
ability of its citizens and businesses
to care for the environment and
reduce pollutants emitted from
industrial growth.”
The TPP trade deal even has
environmental provisions. With
many updates to international
environmental protection com-
mitments, TPP modernizes some
of the United States’ other trade
deals (like NAFTA) so traders are
held more accountable. It also adds
protections to different species of
fish and marine environments,
and provides more enforcement
for laws on fishing, hunting and
preservation.
This area of policy unites both
sides of the political spectrum.
Republicans, who are tradition-
ally more focused on the economy,
have been reluctant to support
environmental
protections
due
to potentially harmful economic
effects. Democrats, however, often
find that the benefits outweigh the
costs to conserve and protect the
environment in the long run. By
opening the United States’ borders
to trade, however, fiscal conser-
vatives can help the prospects of
our planet, while environmental-
ist liberals can increase domestic
competition and exports.
While no trade deal is perfect,
this issue should unite almost all
Americans, especially when the
modern political discourse is so
contentious.
Students across American cam-
puses, furthermore, have a unique
role to play in this debate. Pew
Research Center finds a broad sup-
port of free trade among adolescents.
As the largest age demographic of
free trade supporters, millennials
need to counteract isolationist eco-
nomics coming from both Demo-
crats and Republicans with the
truths of economic openness. And as
one of the most vocal groups on the
environment, we need to effectively
communicate that we can do both:
We can help the environment and
help the economy.
Students across the country
should be rising up — telling can-
didates of all parties — that they
don’t care about the politics, they
care about the solutions. Young
people want to protect their envi-
ronment for future generations,
but they also strongly support
free trade — one of the best ways
to improve the country’s economy.
These two issues go hand in hand
and millennials need to make
their voices heard. There is a lot of
potential to bring the left and the
right together, on both free trade
and environmental protection. To
be successful, however, we need to
forget the politics and focus on the
actual policy.
Trade and environmental pro-
tection are issues with real solu-
tions; they are debates that impact
everyday lives throughout the
nation. They are discussions our
generation cares to have, with
actual proposals our generation
supports. It’s time politicians in
both parties take note of that.
—Max Rysztak can be reached
at mrysztak@umich.edu.
D
emocrat.
Republican.
Human being?
It seems a bit odd that an
individual would
identify firstly as
a member of a
political
party
and
secondly
as a member of
the human race. But, strangely
enough, that seems to be the real-
ity of our current political climate.
In the age of the 24-hour news
cycle and social media, it appears
the vast majority of people have
already made up their minds on a
variety of issues before even hear-
ing the details, as they feel an obli-
gation to follow party lines. They
assume that the other side is auto-
matically wrong — or, even worse,
purposefully trying to destroy the
very fabric of our country.
The combative nature of the two-
party system seems to be ingrained
in the very DNA of the nation’s peo-
ple; we are essentially taught from
birth that you are either a Democrat
or a Republican and that there is no
in-between. But this in no way needs
to be the case.
In a world where divergent think-
ing is encouraged and we are told
that there are nearly limitless num-
bers of ways to solve just about any
problem we encounter, it seems asi-
nine to believe that the U.S. politi-
cal sphere, which contains some of
the most complex and ambiguous
problems facing man today, could
be boiled down to just two possible
options. Like children, we have
spent an inordinate amount of time
attempting to push a square peg into
a round hole, forcing our ideas onto
others and hoping that they will one
day stick.
This behavior seems ludicrous
given that the political system is
meant to foster the synthesis of
new ideas by allowing individuals
with differing views to engage in a
reasoned forum and find a middle
ground. Sadly, this system has been
distorted, and we as citizens have
been conditioned to believe that dif-
fering views somehow translate to
opposing views, that is simply false.
Maybe it’s in human nature to
engage in competition, and that’s
why we cling to and defend the ideals
of our political parties with the fer-
vor and intensity of a lifelong fan
on game day, but the reality is that
our political system should not be
considered a “political arena,” as
we should in no way be focused
on fighting each other. Politics is
not a brutal gladiator match where
your sole goal is to destroy your
opponent; rather, it is a coopera-
tive effort to aid your fellow man
in achieving an outcome that is
mutually beneficial for society as
a whole. The truth is that politics
should not be an argument but a
discussion.
More than 200 years ago, during
his farewell address upon leaving
the office of the presidency, our very
first president, George Washington,
warned of the impending danger of
the rise of political parties, stating
“the common and continual mis-
chiefs of the spirit of party are suf-
ficient to make it the interest and
the duty of a wise people to discour-
age and restrain it. It serves always
to distract the Public Councils and
enfeeble the Public Administration.
It agitates the Community with ill-
founded jealousies and false alarms,
kindles the animosity of one part
against another, foments occasion-
ally riot and insurrection.”
Washington
feared
that
the
interests of the parties would one
day overpower the interests of the
nation, and it appears that we have
reached a point where that may in
fact be true. We are currently in the
midst of an election cycle where the
two major party candidates have the
lowest favorability ratings in history.
An election where many Democrats
are voting not out of support for
Hillary Clinton, but out of a hatred
toward the opposite party, and vice
versa for the Republicans and Don-
ald Trump.
We are just several short years
beyond the time in 2010 when for-
mer Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell claimed that the num-
ber one goal of the Republican Con-
gress was to ensure Obama was a
one-term president, rather than
passing legislation. Our country
has never been so divided along
party lines.
While it is certainly great tele-
vision to highlight this “ideologi-
cal war” by plastering two talking
heads onto a television screen to yell
incessantly at each other, this in no
way aids our nation. The complex
issues that are at play concerning
unemployment, abortion rights and
income inequality will not be fixed
by continuous conflict, but rather
through comprehension and com-
promise. Individuals on both ends of
the political spectrum need to make
a concerted effort to reach a mutual
understanding of where the opposite
side is coming from.
The truth is that someone with
differing views from yours is in
no way attempting to destroy our
country or take away any part
of what made it great in the first
place. There is more than one way
to run a country, just as there is
more than one way to approach
any issue, and both sides are genu-
inely attempting to do what they
believe is best for our nation.
We as a people must remember
that no matter our race, religion
or political affiliation, we are, in
fact, people first. This realization
necessitates a degree of compro-
mise and understanding from all
individuals, no matter their back-
ground or ideology.
We are now 240 years into our
nation’s great history; the night
is no longer young. Our political
party is winding down, and just
unwanted guests remain. It seems
best to return to our shared home
of humanity, lest we overstay our
welcome.
—Jeff Brooks can be reached
at brooksjs@umich.edu.
JEFF
BROOKS
The party is winding down
FRANCES MILLER
email frances at frmiller@umich.edu
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, Kevin Sweitzer,
Rebecca Tarnopol,
Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
“Maybe it’s in
human nature
to engage in
competition...but
we should in no
way be focused
on fighting each
other.”
“It sounds
like Clinton
and Trump
might agree on
something, but
unfortunately,
they are both
wrong on the
actual policy.”