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
4 — Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016

Meaningful dissent

MAX 
LUBELL

O

n Aug. 4, Ann Arbor passed 
an ordinance banning the 
sale of tobacco products 

to people under 
the age of 21, 
becoming 
the 

first 
city 
in 

Michigan 
to 

join the national 
tobacco 
21 

movement. The purpose of such 
laws is to make it more difficult 
for teenagers to smoke cigarettes, 
decreasing the chance of addiction 
and therefore saving lives. The 
ordinance, which passed in a 
9-to-2 vote, came after a debate 
over whether such a law would 
be legitimate under state law. 
The Michigan Tobacco Products 
Tax Act of 1993 states that “a city 
… (or) local unit of government … 
of this state shall not impose any 
new requirement or prohibition 
pertaining 
to 
the 
sale 
or 

licensure of tobacco products for 
distribution purposes.”

I believe the local ordinance 

does in fact conflict with the 
state tobacco policy. This is a 
similar opinion shared by several 
councilmembers who voted for 
the ordinance. However, City 
Council members who believe 
the ordinance violates the state 
law still voted to pass the law. But 
I’m not going to attempt to argue 
whether the local ordinance 
does or does not conflict with 
the state tobacco policy. Rather, 
I wish to answer the question 
of why a City Council member 
would vote to pass legislation 
if they believed it violated the 
state law.

The 
council 
members 
are 

imposing a strategy that will 
attempt 
to 
create 
a 
positive 

change, even if the ordinance 
is 
ineffective. 
After 
all, 
the 

legislation on the surface seems 
to be pretty ineffective and a 
little pointless. There is nothing 
to 
stop 
a 
19-year-old 
from 

driving one town over to buy a 
pack of cigarettes. However, the 
passage of local legislation that 
conflicts with state legislation 
is an effective strategy to refute 

unethical state laws.

Attempting to create positive 

change on the state level appears to 
be the basis for several City Council 
members’ reasoning when passing 
the ordinance. Councilmember 
Chuck 
Warpehoski 
(D–Ward 

5) believes a positive change 
is worth challenging the state 
legislation, even if it goes to the 
courts, stating, “It’s an untested 
area in the state of Michigan. 
But as an untested one, I think 
the opportunity to save lives is 
worth taking a leadership role and 
pushing for better legislation.”

Warpehoski 
reveals 
a 

reasonable strategy for creating 
the ordinance: trusting the courts. 
As an untested area in the state 
law, the ordinance’s functionality 
will likely be decided in the courts. 
In the event that a state court 
decides the local ordinance does 
not conflict with the state legal 
code, then the city has created a 
positive change for its residents. 
Furthermore, it will create a 
precedent that will allow other 
local governments to pass similar 
laws. Even if the courts do not 
rule in the city’s favor, there could 
be a positive impact by creating 
pressure at the state level.

There are two main reasons 

why passing the ordinance is an 
effective strategy, even if the 
courts will rule it as illegitimate. 
First, it draws attention to the 
unethical state law, creating a 
public consciousness. If the law 
is truly unethical, the public will 
get on board and also oppose 
the law, creating pressure for 
change. Secondly, the passage of 
conflicting legislation creates a 
symbolic message, portraying a 
population that dissents from state 
rulings and is willing to reject 
them. A discussion over that law, 
which may never have occurred 
without such dissent, is forced to 
begin on the state level. Both are 
explanations of how Ann Arbor is 
creating momentum throughout 
the state to create a change to our 
state tobacco laws.

Even if the momentum built 

does not create change to our state 

laws, there is still a benefit to the 
city’s defiance. Even if nothing is 
changed, the local government is 
able to stand by their ethicality in 
rejecting the state law. The local 
government symbolically portrays 
that they want no part to play 
following a legal system that they 
deem problematic. It signifies that 
the local government, while legally 
forced to follow the state laws, 
does not want to simply stand by 
without voicing their discontent 
with their state’s policies.

While Ann Arbor’s strategy may 

seem beneficial in dissenting from 
state laws they deem unethical, it 
is not a strategy that is reserved 
for progressive policies. After all, 
the reason Ann Arbor’s stance is 
courageous and beneficial may 
simply be because it is being used 
for a progressive policy proposal. 
However, that is not always going 
to be the case.

For 
example, 
a 
local 

government could be filled with 
people who oppose same-sex 
marriage. That government could 
try to send a political message by 
passing an ordinance banning it 
in their city. The ordinance would 
obviously be deemed illegitimate 
by the federal court system, 
but the local government still 
succeeded in sending a political 
symbol of their dissent from the 
progressive federal policy. So 
perhaps we should be wary of this 
strategy of local politics. It sends 
a message to the top, but it could 
have poor consequences if local 
governments 
start 
dissenting 

from any law they see as standing 
against their specific government 
official’s ethical code.

Creating 
local 
laws 
that 

conflict with unethical state or 
federal laws is a good strategy 
for changing those laws, but that 
strategy may not always be great. 
It is a strategy that can be used 
by any local government, whether 
they are backing a progressive 
ethicality or one that seems to 
move us backward.

—Max Lubell can be reached 

at mlubell @umich.edu. 

ANTHONY LABONTE 
 anthony is a contributing cartoonist

Carolyn Ayaub, 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

D

octor. Surgeon. Genius. Einstein. 
These are the labels by which my 
family defines me.

I am obviously not a doctor nor a surgeon, 

not a genius nor an Einstein, but every day 
when I wake up, it’s a day trying to live up to 
these expectations; it’s a day living the life 
of a first-generation college student from 
an immigrant family trying to make every 
moment on this campus worth it for not just 
me, but for my family.

In 1973, my now-late grandfather came to 

the United States for the first time. Leaving 
his seven children and my grandmother, 
he came here alone in search of a new 
opportunity. Just 11 years later, in 1984, 
my father and the remainder of his family 
followed, escaping a war that tore our 
country of Lebanon apart. The Lebanese 
Civil War lasted from 1975 to 1990, with an 
estimated 150,000 people killed and more 
than 1 million (a quarter of the population) 
were displaced. My family was a part of that 
1 million.

When my father and his dad came to the 

United States, they knew nothing about 
being in this country. They did not know 
how to read street signs. With a lack of 
mosques, there were no places for them 
to worship Islam, and with no internet 
(or Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram), 
they could not communicate easily back 
home with family. Being in the United 
States was a hard life to live, but they did 
know, however, that they were in a place 
of opportunity, jobs, education and safety, 
and future generations of our family would 
have a better life because of their move. Fast 
forward 32 years later and here I am as a 
student at one of the best universities in the 
world, the University of Michigan.

My acceptance into U of M is the reason 

why my family thinks I am a genius. My two 
older brothers matriculated at U of M before 
me and our education is something never 
believed to be possible and never before 
done by people in our family. My father and 
his siblings did not attend a university and 
the degrees we get from here are pieces of 
paper that mean more than the world to 
those who are supporting us. This is why 
when I go home they call me a “doctor” 
before I have even taken the MCAT, and 
it is why my mom’s father walks around 
Dearborn showing people that I was one of 
the Students of the Year.

To my family, this education is foreign 

and unique, and it means that every 
backbreaking 
job 
they 
worked, 
every 

hardship they have endured, every tear they 
have shed and every dollar they have earned 

has paid off. For me this life of campus 
chaos is easy. This life of everyday tiring 
educational work is nothing compared to 
watching what my family had to do to get 
me where I am today — my success and work 
is worth every moment of over-exhaustion, 
fatigue and hard work. This is my way 
to thank my family, to make them proud, 
to live up to their expectations and to let 
them know that for every challenge they 
faced, I made a move to better my world, my 
surroundings and my future, and they did 
nothing in vain.

Our story, our background and our 

past have motivated my family to create 
the Ahmad K. Jawad Scholarship for 
Community Service and Social Action 
through the Edward Ginsberg Center for 
Community Service and Learning. When 
I was a freshman, I was awarded a similar 
scholarship through the Ginsberg Center, 
which required a one-year term of service 
to the Ginsberg Student Advisory Board 
and also provided me with $1,000 that 
allowed me to work less hours for pay, 
and spend more hours on developing my 
service and community engagement. I am 
now entering my third year on the board, 
not by requirement to my scholarship, 
but by volunteer, because this leadership 
role has defined me and my time here at 
this University. My family and I hold our 
education and donation to the highest 
regard, and this award is a gift to education, 
as there is no better way to remember 
my grandpa’s memory than in his and 
my family’s determination to educate 
successive generations.

My family has established the Ahmad 

K. Jawad Community Service Scholarship 
Fund in honor of my grandpa, Ahmad, 
who brought our family here to make huge 
strides like the ones I am making today; he 
came to the United States with a vision of a 
better future through education and giving 
for others. This year, one $1,000 scholarship 
will be awarded to support a first-generation 
University of Michigan student who gives a 
commitment to community service or social 
action and who demonstrates financial 
need. I hope this story and this scholarship 
will give someone the opportunity I was so 
fortunate to have have had during my first 
month at the University.

I write this in loving memory of Ahmad 

K. Jawad, my grandpa whom my family and 
I miss daily, but whose memory will never 
be lost nor forgotten.

 
—Nadine Jawad can be reached 

at nkjawad@umich.edu

Behind the Jawad Scholarship

NADINE JAWAD | OP-ED

 

— Miami Dolphins owner Steven Ross, remarking on four of his players 
refusing to stand for the national anthem during Sunday’s game against 

the Seattle Seahawks.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I don’t think there was any lack of 

respect. Everyone in this team and whole 

organization respects the flag and what 

it stands for. These guys are making a 

conversation about something that’s very 

important topic in this country. I’m 100 

percent in support of them.”

Survivors Speak: Submit to our series

O

ver the past few years, 
both 
students 
and 

administrators 
at 
the 

University 
of 
Michigan 
have 

addressed campus sexual assault 
through new policies and ongoing 
campus activism — but amid all 
this focus, at times the personal 
stories of individuals who have 
survived an assault can be lost in 
the bigger discussion. With that 
in mind, the Opinion section is 
creating a space in The Michigan 
Daily for first-person accounts 
of campus sexual assault and 
its 
corresponding 
personal, 

academic and legal implications. 
Submissions will be published as 
a series of personal accounts that 
show an essential perspective: 
that of the survivor.

Submissions:
This series is open to University 

students who have experienced 
sexual assault and would like to 
share their statements as part of 
a first-person series. If you have 
experienced assault and would like 
to participate in the University’s 
and the nation’s conversation 
surrounding the issue, we are here 
to include your perspective.

This 
series 
centers 
on 
the 

implications of sexual assault — 
what happens in the days and 
weeks afterward and what it means 
to be a survivor of sexual assault as 
a student and as a member of the 
University’s campus community. 
You may want to include specific 
details about the assault in your 
piece if they are relevant to your 
narrative, but keep in mind that the 
focus of this series is the effects of 
assault. We will accept submissions 

from 
survivors 
regardless 
of 

whether you have reported the 
assault, and the series is open to 
all students and recently graduated 
alumni 
— 
undergraduates 
and 

graduates — of all gender identities. 
Pieces do not need to be about 
an experience that began on the 
University’s campus.

This series also takes on 

the understanding that sexual 
assault cases are not all black and 
white, and is open to submissions 
regardless of the outcome of a 
University or court case. We 
will read your piece without 
judgment or assumptions about 
guilt. If your case has gone 
through the University or police 
system, and you reference details 
from that experience in your 
piece, we will ask you to provide 
documentation as part of the 
Daily’s fact-checking protocol.

Overall, we are seeking to 

provide a space for students who 
may or may not have previously 
had an outlet to share their 
stories and to provide a nuanced 
statement 
on 
campus 
sexual 

assault to the Daily’s audience, 
UM students and fellow survivors.

Format requirements:
We aim to give survivors 

a 
space 
to 
freely 
express 

themselves and therefore will 
accept submissions that follow 
a range of writing styles and 
formats. Submissions should not 
exceed 1,000 words in length, 
and may be submitted as an 
op-ed, personal essay, letter or 
poem.

We 
will 
not 
be 
accepting 

anonymous submissions because 

the aim of this series is to help 
create a campus where students 
can speak openly about sexual 
assault without being shamed or 
stigmatized. We do not guarantee 
publication of each piece we 
receive. 
Everything 
published 

in the Opinion section must 
follow the Daily’s style rules and 
standards for factual accuracy, 
and we reserve the right to alter 
wording when necessary to uphold 
those standards. If your piece is 
selected for publication, you will 
be involved in our editing process.

*If you would like to submit 

a piece about sexual assault but 
are not a survivor yourself, we 
highly encourage you to submit it 
as an op-ed to the Opinion section 
by emailing it to tothedaily@
michigandaily.com to participate 
in the conversation.

Resources for survivors:
We understand that writing and 

recounting your experience can be 
emotionally challenging. We want 
to remind all that the following 
organizations 
and 
campus 

groups are available for support: 
Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Awareness 
Center 
(SAPAC), 

Spectrum 
Center, 
Counseling 

and 
Psychological 
Services 

(CAPS), 
CAPS 
After 
Hours, 

MiTalk, CampusMindWorks, UM 
Psychological Clinic. 

—Please submit pieces to 

Editorial Page Editors Claire Bryan 

(claireab@michigandaily.com) 

and Regan Detwiler (regandet@

michigandaily.com) by Friday, 

Sept. 23, to be considered for 

publication in this series.

