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.