W
hen most people
throw
something
away, usually little
attention is paid to what
happens next. For most cities,
the
final
resting
spot of trash is
a landfill, which
is simply a large,
coated hole in the ground
for trash to sit for the rest of
eternity. However, for Detroit
residents, the final resting
place of the most harmful
elements of trash is in the
lungs of the residents of
Midtown and Poletown East.
The city is home to Detroit
Renewable Power, America’s
largest
“Waste-to-Energy”
facility. While that sounds
like a nice name, in actuality,
the facility is simply a large
furnace that runs on burned
trash and generates electricity
and steam. Detroit’s facility
is located off the eastern
edge
of
Midtown
at
the
intersection of Interstate 94
and Interstate 75. While many
give it praise as an innovation
in waste management, many
residents refer to the tall
grey
smokestack
as
“The
Incinerator,”
alluding
to
a dirtier side of the waste
management facility.
Originally opened in 1986,
the incinerator was hailed as
a step in the right direction
for
waste
reduction
and
environmentalism in Detroit.
The original plan for the
incinerator was to burn up to
4,000 tons of trash per day and
provide energy for more than
60,000 homes. However, the
population of Detroit has fallen
about 50 percent since 1986,
and with that, the supply of
trash has markedly decreased.
Faced with the dilemma of
being unable to keep up with
the power and steam needs of
downtown Detroit, the facility
— originally designed to burn
all
of
Detroit’s
household
trash
—
decided
to
start
importing trash from other
municipalities and commercial
operations.
The
problems
associated
with
running
a
30-year-
old trash incinerator on waste
it wasn’t meant to handle are
staggering. When I visited the
area around the incinerator,
I was greeted with an odor
so foul that I could barely
walk down the street without
gagging. Sadly, it wasn’t just
the smell that was nauseating
— cars whizzed by overhead on
Interstate 94, and a constant
stream
of
trash
trucks
rumbled by, spewing brown
trash “juice” out of the back.
Many studies have shown
that despite state-mandated
pollution controls, the levels
of CO2, mercury, lead and
other
harmful
materials
exceed safe amounts.
I
spoke
with
William
Copeland,
climate
justice
director
for
the
Eastern
Michigan
Environmental
Action Council, which is an
environmental activist group
that is working to close the
incinerator.
“The
Detroit
Incinerator is an outdated,
ancient facility with some of
the least pollution controls
of all incinerators in the
country,” he said.
“The owners of the facility
show little to no concern
for the negative health and
environmental
impacts
of
their
facility
on
the
community,” he told me as we
walked by the incinerator’s
looming
smokestack.
Many
groups oppose the incinerator
and have specific concerns
about health impacts on the
surrounding communities.
For any community, the
disposal of trash is a struggle.
However,
there
are
steps
that can be taken to reduce
waste. The City of Detroit
only
instituted
curbside
recycling in 2014, a program
that is still underperforming,
while composting services are
nearly nonexistent. Even the
placement of the incinerator
is problematic, located right
off the edge of the bustling
Midtown district. This isn’t
some place far away that
nobody lives in, it’s right in
the middle of a population
center — there is even a school
just blocks away from the
smokestack,
meaning
that
children inhale the exhaust of
the incinerator every day.
In order for Detroit to
become the city of the future
that it hopes to be, it must
solve its waste management
crisis.
Incineration
isn’t
a
viable
option
anymore,
especially with the massive
population losses that have
stricken the area.
“Detroit and the metro-
Detroit
region
must
move
toward zero waste — reducing,
reusing,
composting
and
recycling
our
waste,”
Copeland
said.
“However,
this can never happen as
long as the region continues
to be saddled (by) Detroit’s
monster of an incinerator,” he
continued. This is something
that must be done, because
the city of the future can’t
rely on an outdated system
of waste disposal anymore.
Reduction of waste, recycling
and finding alternatives to
incineration are incredibly
necessary for the progress of
Detroit.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 20, 2016
Kevin Sweitzer can be reached at
ksweitz@umich.edu.
Something’s burning in Midtown
KEVIN SWEITZER | COLUMN
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
I
don’t know about you,
but this has been a pretty
emotional week for me.
Maybe
it’s
the
typical
stress
of
midterm
season
creeping
up,
maybe it’s the toll
recent
incidents
of hate speech and
intolerance
on
our campus have
taken or maybe it’s
something deeper.
But as I watched
the
second
presidential debate last Sunday
night, I felt a gaping pit open
in the middle of my stomach.
As each minute passed, each
punch was thrown and each
opportunity for remorse and
accountability was deflected,
I succumbed to defeat. The
America I was raised to
believe in — the tolerant,
hopeful, opportunity-ridden
America they teach us about
as kids — was dead. I went
to bed that night terrified
of a new era emerging in
this country where hate and
division reign supreme.
But this isn’t true. Rather,
this doesn’t have to be true.
Right here and now, we have an
opportunity to alter the course
of history. We have a chance to
denounce the negativity that
has swept across our country
and replace it with a positive
vision for our future. And the
simplest and most fundamental
way to combat this negativity is
through our votes.
On Monday night, I covered
an event at Eastern Michigan
University where Sen. Cory
Booker (D–N.J.) campaigned
for
Democratic
presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton, along
with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D–
Mich.), Sen. Gary Peters (D–
Mich.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell
(D–Ann
Arbor).
The
event
truly could not have come
at a more perfect time. I left
feeling inspired, invigorated
and hopeful that we can break
this cycle of cynicism. We can
be angry at all of the recent
events, but as Sen. Booker
said, we must decide that “we
are not going to allow … our
inability to do everything to
undermine our determination
to do something.” We cannot
let ourselves fall into what
Booker
calls
a
“state
of
sedentary
agitation.”
It
is
one thing to discuss
our
anger
at
the
negativity
invading
our country, but we
need to channel that
anger into action. If
we wish to erase the
negative,
we
must
register,
we
must
vote and we must
encourage others to
do the same.
College
students
are in a unique position to make
an incredible impact on this
election. For many of us, this is
the first presidential election
in which we are eligible to
vote. For the first time, we
do not have to defer to our
parents’ or our grandparents’
generations to determine the
path our futures will take.
Yet, college students in the
past few presidential elections
have voted at rates of about 40
percent. In fact, young adults
ages 18 to 24 constitute the
group with the lowest voter
turnout of any age group in
this country. At the same time,
people 65 and over vote at
rates of nearly 70 percent. If
we do not show up to the polls,
we cannot complain about
policies that have an adverse
impact on our lives. If we do
not vote, older generations
will continue to drive us
down the negative path we
already see on the horizon.
As
President
Obama
remarked in his commencement
address at Howard University
in May, “When we don’t vote,
we
give
away
our
power,
disenfranchise
ourselves
—
right when we need to use
the power that we have; right
when we need your power to
stop others from taking away
the vote and rights of those
more vulnerable than you.”
We cannot do everything, but
voting is one small action we
can take that will have huge
implications for our futures.
I’ve
heard
many
people
recently saying that instead
of choosing the “lesser of two
evils,” they are simply not
going to vote. These people
claim they can sacrifice the
next four years of their lives
and reset at the next election
when the parties put up more
worthy candidates. Here’s the
reality: Millions of people in
this country cannot afford to
sacrifice these next four years.
For many, this election is the
difference
between
poverty
and prosperity, employment
and unemployment, equality
and inequality — even life
and death. This election will
determine
whether
people
who have lived in the United
States their entire lives will
be deported. This election will
determine whether women will
still have control over their
own health. This election will
determine how we see race,
gender, sexuality and diversity
in our country: with tolerance
or with division. Those of us
who have the “luxury” not
to vote have an obligation to
vote. As Sen. Booker asserted,
“The most perverse type of
privilege, the most dangerous
type
of
privilege,
is
that
there’s a serious problem out
there, but because it doesn’t
affect you personally, it’s not
your problem.”
If we love our country and
still see the light amid so much
darkness, then we must vote.
Sen.
Booker
ended
his
speech with an excerpt from
the poem Let America Be
America Again by Langston
Hughes:
O, let America be America
again —
The land that never has
been yet —
And yet must be — the land
where every man is free.
The land that’s mine — the
poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s,
ME —
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood,
whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry,
whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty
dream again …
O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America
to me,
And yet I swear this oath —
America will be!
Let’s bring back the positive
MELISSA STRAUSS | COLUMN
Melissa Strauss can be reached at
melstrau@umich.edu
MELISSA
STRAUSS
KEVIN
SWEITZER
FROM THE DAILY
A new approach to diversity on campus
E
arlier this month, the University of Michigan launched its
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion plan, committing $85 million over
the next five years to “a vibrant, diverse and inclusive campus.”
Though the University makes significant strides with the plan, the
loudest voice in it is that of bureaucracy. While there are several
important aspects to the DEI initiative, we feel that the number one
strategy to creating a better campus climate, which the DEI plan largely
falls short of, starts with the foundation of the curriculum we learn in
our classrooms. The ideal curriculum doesn’t dilute the importance of
diversity, equity and inclusion to a singular course requirement, skit
or event at the beginning of one’s freshman year, but rather infuses it
into curricula of all courses and course structures campuswide, over
the span of students’ time at the University.
The central weakness in
the
administration’s
DEI
initiative is that rather than
taking this opportunity to
innovate
and
incorporate
student perspectives on what
has and has not been working
and rethink its approach to
diversity, it doubles down on
tired strategies that sound
good on paper but fail to
achieve real change. While
the construction of a new
Trotter Multicultural Center,
an expansion of the Wolverine
Pathways program to engage
with K-12 students in Detroit
and devoting financial support
to
departments
conducting
research on diversity are all
good steps the plan outlines,
these are not the steps that
will contribute to tangibly
changing the campus climate.
Perhaps the chief example of
the failure of the DEI to make
substantive changes lies in its
plan to implement a cultural
sensitivity training initiative.
Through
this
program,
incoming
freshman
classes
will be required to fill out an
assessment of their cultural
sensitivity, complete a unique
training program based on
their results and receive a
certificate for completion. An
online test at the beginning
of freshman year will not
be sophisticated enough to
accurately indicate whether
or not a student is sufficiently
culturally sensitive to be a
respectful
member
of
our
University community.
By opting for this method,
the University is assuming that
the best strategy in promoting
diversity is to concentrate
this education in the first few
weeks a student is on campus.
In reality, this period of time
is far from ideal in terms of
communicating a message —
students are worried about
making
friends,
starting
classes and getting acquainted
with Ann Arbor. What’s more,
many
students
may
know
how to go through the online
motions and provide the “right
answer”
when
prompted,
simply to get the test over with.
Discussing
diversity
is
an obvious important step
in introducing students to
campus, but the first few
weeks
of
freshman
year
should not be the first and last
time students are required
to reflect on and learn about
cultural sensitivity. Someone
won’t
learn
about
implicit
biases, harmful stereotypes or
discrimination through a quiz.
That shift will only happen
through a more comprehensive
redesign of how professors
teach and what ideas and
perspectives are incorporated
into each course’s curriculum.
The
University
should
mandate that all curriculums
in all classes across all schools
and colleges are reevaluated by
professors to include material
that provides other narratives
besides
the
dominant
one
typically
taught
in
the
discipline. Many classes do
this already, but a significant
number do not, and many of
the ones that do fail to do it
as thoroughly as they should.
When reading lists and syllabi
are
made,
teachers
must
include voices of scholars and
authors from varying minority
backgrounds in their field.
When lecture topics are picked,
professors should make an
explicit effort to cover the
works and thoughts of minority
groups who may have been
ignored or underrepresented in
previous curricula.
That
said,
incorporating
themes
and
content
that
include diverse perspectives
into an LSA syllabus is easier
than incorporating them into
a syllabus in the College of
Engineering or Ross School
of Business, because course
content in these schools is
less likely to relate to issues
surrounding diversity directly.
However, by shining a light on
diversity, professors and GSIs
— regardless of their discipline
— can transform what would
otherwise
be
a
one-time
push at the beginning of a
student’s freshman year into
the starting point for themes
that span across every year.
And it is imperative that each
faculty member and GSI in
every school on campus work
toward
goals
of
including
diverse perspectives into not
only their syllabi, but also in
the way that the classroom
environment is structured.
The LSA DEI plan, like
many at universities across
the
country,
requires
the
development of trainings and
DEI sessions for professors
and GSIs to better facilitate
issues
of
identity
and
representation in classrooms.
Changes like these should be
applauded. In the classroom,
faculty members play the most
vital role in how students
participate in class, and in
turn, how they learn in class.
Teachers must be cognizant of
how their teaching styles affect
students differently and then
must also be good facilitators
of discussions that include all
voices. Only when all students
are comfortable enough to
share
their
perspective
is
everyone in the classroom
benefiting
fully
from
the
educational experience.
As
well,
more
thought
should be put into the methods
that
promote
continued
self-reflection
on
one’s
identity, such as a program
for sophomore year, one that
reinforces and builds on what
is learned in the first few
weeks of school. The Race and
Ethnicity requirement should
continue to be re-evaluated,
and
should
be
expanded
beyond LSA, because themes
about how to relate to others,
be
respectful
and
take
advantage of the diversity this
University community has to
offer are equally relevant to
those
studying
engineering
or business or kinesiology.
These ideas must be infused
into each course curriculum
campuswide in order to start
to witness the kind of change
to campus climate for which
the DEI plan is calling.
Promoting diversity at a
large, public university is a
daunting task, and the DEI
initiative takes steps toward
progress. Unfortunately, this
progress
is
overshadowed
by
an
administration
that
seems
more
willing
to
rebrand existing initiatives,
rather than do the work of
stepping back, reassessing its
approach and implementing a
more progressive strategy to
accomplish diversity, equity
and inclusion on campus. This
would
require
substantial
changes to the ways issues and
discussions of diversity are
integrated into curriculum and
new training for faculty about
structural
and
atmospheric
changes to classes that will
highlight
diverse
groups
of
people
and
different
perspectives.
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.