Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 28, 2016
MICHELLE SHENG | CONTACT MICHELLE AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU
The truth about class
LAUREN SCHANDEVEL | OP-ED
B
ear with me for this
metaphor.
Imagine you have two
seeds. You plant one seed in a
sunny patch of nutrient-rich soil
and water it every day. You plant
the other seed in a dark shed
and neglect it for months. Not
surprisingly, the first seed grows
tall and healthy while the other
does not.
Can you attribute the success
of the first seed or the failure
of the second to any inherent
quality? Of course not; you
provided the conditions, which
produced the results.
Now imagine two children.
One child grows up in a safe,
affluent
neighborhood
and
attends
an
excellent
school,
where they are encouraged to
pursue their interests and given
the resources necessary to do
so. The other child grows up in a
poverty-stricken
neighborhood
and
attends
a
school
with
crumbling infrastructure, a poor
student-to-teacher ratio and a
shortage of even the most basic
resources. The first child goes
on to graduate from a renowned
university and pursue a lucrative
career that allows them to raise
their children in an area similar
to the one in which they grew up.
The second child, on the other
hand, does not graduate from
high school and instead works
a low-wage job and remains in
their neighborhood, where they
raise their children in precisely
the same conditions.
Can we attribute the success
of the first child or the perceived
failure of the second to any
inherent quality? Of course not;
as with the seeds, we provided
the conditions, which produced
the results.
If the rationale of our metaphor
holds, then why do we still
operate under the assumption
that one’s socioeconomic status
is the product of one’s character?
More specifically, why do we act
as though poverty and wealth
are deliberate choices, rather
than phenomena created and
perpetuated by a rigidly stratified
class system?
For decades, we have blissfully
and collectively operated under
the assumption that America
is a fruitful meritocracy where
all dreams, no matter how
ambitious, can be achieved with
just the right amount of hard
work and determination. This
is the foundation on which our
country was built, and its blind
optimism resonates today with
the same magnitude that it did
more than 200 years ago. Our
country’s elite are lauded for
their
competence
while
our
poor are degraded for their
deficiencies, all while those of us
making the observations remain
grossly unaware of how exactly
our system works to maintain
these inequalities.
Here is a bitter pill to swallow:
America is an oligarchy in which
a handful of (primarily wealthy
and
white)
citizens
inherit
automatic and unlimited access
to elite academic institutions,
political influence and positions
of power. Poor people and people
of color are not left out because
they do not have what it takes to
thrive — they are left out because
we never intended for them to
thrive in the first place.
Now you may be asking
yourself: “What about all of
those inspiring stories I’ve heard
in which someone who comes
from next to nothing manages to
succeed despite all odds?”
The answer lies within the
question. These individuals are
exceptions — not in the sense that
they did not earn their success
(if anything, they are especially
deserving of it), but rather that
their
systemic
disadvantage
made the probability of their
success far lesser than their more
affluent counterparts.
Nevertheless, the myth of the
American Dream demands a
sacrifice, and these individuals
are
subsequently
tokenized
and heralded as examples of
the culmination of hard work
and “pulling oneself up by the
bootstraps.” We parade them
in front of their communities
as if to say: “You could achieve
the same results, you just didn’t
work hard enough.”
So I’ll revisit the metaphor:
If a seed grows in a dark room,
is it viewed as a miracle or an
expectation?
Think about it.
We are conditioned to believe
that our every accomplishment
is the product of our character
alone rather than a combination
of character and circumstance,
of the resources we are given
and the ways in which we
utilize them. Not only does this
mentality perpetuate the notion
that the wealthy are inherently
superior; it allows us to live
comfortably in the presence of
extreme poverty by blaming the
poor for their own misfortunes.
If
we
can
confront
our
perceptions of class head-on,
work diligently to undo our
inherited
biases
and
unite
to
strengthen
and
elevate
one another in a way that is
productive and decent, then
we can successfully develop
solutions to the flaws in our
system that threaten to divide us.
What are the consequences
of allowing all of our seeds to
grow in ideal conditions? Are
we afraid some will crowd
out others, that there is not
enough sunlight and water to go
around? Do we feel threatened
by
the
prospect
of
equal
opportunity? What will become
of our garden?
I’ll tell you what will happen:
It will grow bigger and more
beautiful than ever before.
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.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
Editorial Page Editors
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.
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
Lauren Schandevel is an
LSA sophomore.
E
arlier this year, George
Will, the championed
conservative columnist,
announced he was leaving the
Republican Party. “The long
and the short of it is, as Ronald
Reagan said when he changed
his registration, I did not leave
the
Democratic
Party,
the
Democratic Party left me,” Will
responded to a shocked press.
Reduced to an outsider within
his own political family, Will
evoked the father of modern
conservatism to try and explain
away his position.
We,
too,
are
distraught
Republicans, and have both
served on the executive board
for the University of Michigan’s
chapter of College Republicans
in the past.
But for us, supporting Donald
Trump
means
abandoning
our core principles of limited
government, individual freedom
and
strong
international
leadership. Trump’s candidacy
has left us and many other
life-long Republicans with the
vexing choice of voting for a
candidate who is clearly unfit
for the office or defying years
of party loyalty. We believe in
putting our nation over party
identity.
Nevertheless, not all of our
Republican-minded friends feel
the same way we do. Two weeks
ago, UMCR officially endorsed
Mr. Trump and announced
its intention to partner with
Trump’s national campaign.
We respect UMCR’s decision
to support Trump and its
right to make that decision. If
anything, the 2016 campaign
has lacked the basic decency
that should exist in any election
— for the most part, voters’
opinions must be respected and
left open for discussion. After
all, if we expect any societal
shift toward healthy debate to
occur, then we must begin to
ease the tense disapproval we
place on those who oppose our
personal viewpoints.
But while we respect the
decision, we cannot support
it. As former UMCR members,
we are writing this column to
other students who may find
themselves similarly caught in
the awkward position between
loyalty and voting according to
what their conscience tells them.
We urge you to do the latter.
UMCR
President
Enrique
Zalamea’s
comment
to
the
Michigan Review that “any
Republican
is
better
than
Hillary
Clinton”
seems
to
exemplify many Republicans’
attitudes
this
election.
But
to us, it is far from clear that
Mr. Trump can accurately be
described as “Republican” in
any way but nominally. His
nomination was secured with
about 56 percent of the popular
vote in the primaries when just
14.8 percent of eligible voters
participated — numbers that
hardly imply the blessing of the
party’s constituents. Trump has
never held office as a Republican
and has, in the past, actually
donated to Clinton’s campaigns.
And while we take issue
with many of Clinton’s policy
proposals
and
high-profile
episodes of impropriety, we
have major concerns about the
long-term impact of a Trump
presidency on the United States.
Trump has spent months trying
to convince voters to let him
“make America great again,”
but his policies would likely
produce the opposite outcome.
Trump blames both free trade
agreements and low interest rates
for the state of the economy — a
state he seems to believe is much
worse than it actually is. But
dismantling
the
international
trade laws that have governed
peaceful global commerce since
the end of World War II or raising
interest rates prematurely risk
throwing the U.S. economy into
another recession.
And despite an emphasis
on national security, Trump
threatens
our
country’s
safety
through
incendiary
remarks and feckless “policy”
proposals
that
scapegoat
entire ethnicities, nationalities
and religions for failures of
international governance and
unintended
consequences
of
war. Trump demonstrates an
alarming misunderstanding of
foreign affairs and heaps praise
on dictators while admonishing
prisoners of war. In August,
50
former
senior
security
officials
publicly
declared
their unwillingness to support
Trump, a candidate who, in their
view, put the entire country’s
security “at risk.”
Above
all,
Trump
has
transformed our once cherished,
civil, issues-focused process of
selecting elected officials into a
sideshow circus scene bent on
increasing entertainment value
and spreading fear and anxiety
throughout the public.
The laundry list of concerns
is
seemingly
unending:
He
poses a severe risk to global
economic stability by way of
his inexplicable comments on
debt, trade, taxes and alliances;
he exacerbates social tensions
throughout the United States
by pitting cultures and races
against
one
another;
his
amateurish
understanding
of international conflicts and
the rules of engagement are
startling for a major presidential
candidate; his overall vulgarity,
crassness and egotism all affect
his
standing
among
world
leaders and private American
citizens alike, which hinders
our ability to advance foreign
and domestic interests.
Disregarding these obvious
red
flags,
endorsements
of
Trump consistently paint him
as a change agent who will be
restrained by a powerful team of
advisers and cabinet members.
Unfortunately, this optimistic
view is only a fool’s paradise.
If Mr. Trump chooses his
cabinet as he has chosen his
campaign team — which has
included a former consultant
to a Ukrainian autocrat and
a man who was once charged
with domestic violence — then
the prospects for any sort of
restraint are doomed. As for
Trump’s role as a change agent,
it is unfathomable to expect
someone with zero political
experience
and
a
flagrant
disregard for the truth or facts
of any situation to bring about
the type of change necessary to
fix our country for the better.
We need someone who can
bring opposite sides together.
Donald Trump cannot do this.
We need someone with the
mental fortitude to stick by
their core policy beliefs and
compromise when necessary.
Donald
Trump
cannot
do
this. We need someone who
will represent peace to our
neighbors and diplomacy to
those who oppose us. Donald
Trump cannot do this. We
need a proven, level-headed,
open-minded individual who
recognizes the principles that
built this nation from nothing
into a superpower. Who we need
is categorically the antithesis of
Donald Trump.
The future looks considerably
bleak
for
Republicans
of
our stripe. We still ascribe
to the ideas that guided our
party through the centuries,
beginning with Lincoln, and
we need candidates who will
carry this tradition once again
— Donald Trump will not. It is
tough to be optimistic in such
an uncertain and frustrating
political climate. However, we
cannot give up the efforts to ease
the strangling tension within
the country. Our goal now will
be to move forward supporting
responsible
candidates
with
sensible policies, resisting the
forces that seek to undo us.
Victoria Noble is a columnist and
Ben Keller is a senior opinion editor at
The Michigan Daily.
This November, vote nation over party
VICTORIA NOBLE AND BEN KELLER | OP-ED
A
s a 3-year-old, I had a
polarizing incident of
accidental racism.
We had been learning about
Martin Luther King Jr. and the
civil rights movement
during Black History
Month in preschool.
So, when my dad ran
into one of his close
business
colleagues
(a longtime local civil
rights
leader)
one
day, I asked a poorly
phrased albeit well-
intentioned question
for which I still feel
guilt:
“Dad,
we’re
supposed to be nice to
Black people, right?”
My parents believe firmly in
racial equality, and my Jewish
roots tie me in many ways to
the civil rights movement (more
on this later). My dad was so
embarrassed.
He
apologized
profusely to his friend and then
made sure I understood that,
of course, all people were to be
treated with the same level of
respect, regardless of their skin
color. I shouldn’t have had to ask.
Children’s
minds
are
malleable. It was that easy to
change the way I spoke about and
understood race.
***
Too often, I think, white
people
feel
defensive
when
they’re called out for “white
privilege.” Many feel they’re
being guilted for something
totally beyond their control. I get
it. I’ve been there. “White” is such
a broad word that doesn’t capture
the wide swath of backgrounds
it represents — the U.S. Census
classifies “white” as “a person
having origins in any of the
original peoples of Europe, the
Middle East, or North Africa.”
As someone who is both
culturally
and
religiously
Jewish, my life of privilege
growing up stems directly from
the struggle of my people. My
great-grandparents
left
the
hardship and pogroms of Poland
and Russia shortly before the
Holocaust, and my grandfather
grew up poor in Staten Island to
immigrant parents who spoke
Yiddish and alongside more
traditionally American “white
people” who beat him up for
being a “dirty Jew.”
Knowing my family story,
and having awareness of the
cyclical persecution of Jews
over thousands of years, there
was a time where I felt defensive
about
being
called
out
for
“white
privilege”
because
I
was
reluctant
to
let
my
current
societal
standing
supplant a much more
complicated
history
that is such a big part
of my identity.
Ultimately, though,
it’s
important
to
understand
that
there is a difference
between
generalizing
white
culture (and its numerous ethnic,
socioeconomic, etc. backgrounds)
and recognizing that the mere
appearance of whiteness is a
safeguard in and of itself.
We shouldn’t shy away from
acknowledging “white privilege”
— it exists. It is our responsibility,
then, to be an ally to those whose
voices aren’t as easily heard. We
must employ our privilege to
share their perspectives when
they don’t have a platform to do
so, until the time comes when
that’s no longer necessary. This is
admittedly easier said than done.
***
My only excuse for my 3-year-
old folly is innocent, accidental
ignorance.
However,
that
ignorance is something I was
almost
immediately
coached
out of, and it’s a mistake I revisit
somewhat often, most recently
after fliers that directly targeted
people of color were posted in
Mason Hall.
One sheet explained “Why
White Women Shouldn’t Date
Black Men,” and another called
for “Euro-Americans” to stop
“apologizing,” “living in fear”
and “denying your heritage.” “BE
WHITE,” the latter read.
There is no excuse for the fliers
posted on our campus. There is
no excuse for people who not only
remain willfully and aggressively
ignorant, but also encourage and
espouse ignorance.
Very rarely, if ever, do children
ask if it is OK to “be nice to” a
white person. I can’t imagine how
my dad’s friend must have felt to
hear a 3-year-old kid ask that.
Very rarely, if ever, do white
people sincerely fear for their
lives when they get pulled over by
a police officer. My parents don’t
worry I’ll be killed if I’m caught
running a stop sign.
Very rarely, if ever, based on
Intergroup
Relations
training
I’ve done as a student at this
University, do white people get
asked where they’re “from, from”
as if their home state must not be
their place of official origin.
If there’s one thing that I’d
like people to learn from 3-year-
old me, it’s that ignorance
and
insensitivity
to
others’
experiences can be overcome.
A lesson I’ve picked up from
my peers in the last few years
regarding issues of identity, from
race to religion to gender, is that
it’s OK to feel uncomfortable,
and it’s OK if you don’t know
someone else’s life experiences
— provided that you make an
effort to educate yourself.
Ask the questions you think
might be stupid. Stumble upon a
microaggression, but understand
when someone reacts adversely
and listen to them explain why
what you’ve said is hurtful. Listen.
Listen to others’ perspectives,
and if you can’t empathize,
sympathize. And when the time
comes, spread your newfound
knowledge to the people who
stand where you once did.
I want to be optimistic.
My
hypothesis
is
that
ignorance
sprouts
from
any
combination
of
misunderstanding,
resistance
to change or even fear of that
which
seems
unknown
or
different, and my hope is that
we can help those with fear or
even indifference in their hearts
understand and acknowledge
their unfounded biases in an
effort to subvert even the most
poisonous of thoughts.
At a time when racial disparities
in this country are so much more
complex and nuanced than 50
years ago, yet simultaneously just
as pronounced — and a time when
racial and cultural division seems
to be growing — it is important
that people of all colors speak out
and unite to work through our
problems together. I believe in us.
MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN
Ignorance can be overcome
Michael Sugerman can be reached
at mrsugs@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN