W
ith Halloween fast
approaching,
so
comes the narrative
of
costumes
stained
with
cultural
appropriation
and
racism. Yes, there are posters
hung across the University
of
Michigan
to
say
costumes
like
these
are
wrong,
but there still are
ignorant
people
who will choose to
sport
blackface
or
insensitive garb that
incorrectly represents
a culture of people.
We’ll see it on the
streets on our way to
parties and we’ll see
it all over the news in the days
surrounding the holiday.
Sadly,
some
people
who
wear culturally inappropriate
costumes don’t think about
how it could be wrong. They
don’t think about how others
react, believing it’s a joke and just
all in good fun. They wouldn’t
know what it would feel like to
be made fun of in a horrific way.
Cultural appropriation has been
happening for hundreds of years,
from Nazis persecuting the Jews
to the days when intellectuals
argued that African Americans
had smaller brains than white
Americans
descended
from
Europeans.
It
still
happens
today
through
unfortunate
dressing up, cartoons and racist
comments, among other things.
I’ve been lucky to grow
up in a very diverse town of
Black, white and Arab folks,
where we learned about one
another’s cultures and had
great discussions about being
respectful to each other when
discussing
topics
like
race
and religion. I’ve been lucky to
be born to a Black father and
a white mother, seeing both of
my races and what comes along
when they collide and mix head
on. Other people haven’t had the
same experiences as me, being
closed off into communities
of one race, possibly unable to
learn about what it’s like to walk
in another person’s shoes.
The time to eradicate this
problem completely
is now. Hatred from
Donald
Trump
and some of his
followers
and
hatred from your
neighbor who may
have said a racist
comment
cannot
be tolerated. Some
people think that
making
general
assumptions
is
harmless, and they don’t see
the fault in their ways or how
it can make an entire culture
look less sophisticated and
misrepresented. We need to be
more vocal in our discussion,
for all involved to ask and
answer
questions.
Without
this,
division,
silence
and
racism perpetuate and progress
toward inclusion and empathy
is stagnant.
When
these
situations
occur, it’s very difficult for the
offended party to speak up.
Whether the person who feels
compelled to say something
has been personally attacked
or just feels that the costume is
flat-out wrong, confronting the
insensitive person is difficult
to do. First of all, being
confrontational is a challenge
and can even be affected by
factors such as the surrounding
environment
and
the
relationship you have with the
person in question. As the only
Black man surrounded by a vast
majority of white colleagues in
almost all of my classes, every
day I wonder what people are
thinking about when I speak
up. The situation only escalates
when conversation becomes
confrontational. The person
defending themselves may be
wondering where their support
is and is likely more apt to
remain silent because they feel
alienated in their frustration.
If you see this problem this
Halloween weekend or ever,
please say something. Don’t be
silent and allow the ignorance
to persist. You owe it to yourself,
those who could be hurt and the
person wearing the inappropriate
costume to use your voice to
point out the injustice. It may be
awkward, but the awkwardness
is worth doing the right thing.
Just like it’s tough to be
confrontational,
asking
and
answering
questions
makes
us extremely vulnerable. Both
sides wonder if the person
they’re discussing with will
listen or understand where
they’re
coming
from.
For
change to happen, we must
be willing to take a risk in
this way, moving past our fear
in hopes of progress. People
can be afraid of coming off as
racist or insensitive if they ask
questions about things they
don’t understand. But a genuine
inquisition will come through
if they ask from a perspective
of empathy, improving the
conversation of representation
for all.
Halloween is dubbed as the
scary holiday, but the real fright
is racism and misappropriation.
This fear digs right into the
heart of many and is still a root
problem in our nation. Hopefully
someday we will no longer need
posters explaining that cultural
appropriation
can
happen
through costume, but without
conversation, we all face an
uphill battle. Let our words be as
strong as our actions.
M
y grandmother recently
had the opportunity
to upgrade her phone.
She’s had the same flip phone for
years, and during a recent trip to
the Verizon store with my father
and me, a salesman recommended
that she upgrade to an
iPhone. She turned to
me and asked, “Why
would I need this?” My
dad chimed in that she
could have access to her
email account, and the
salesman
mentioned
she’d have far superior
texting functionality.
This is a woman who
just about always knows
what she wants, and a
new phone was not on her list. She
explained that she didn’t need to
text; she prefers calling. She didn’t
need mobile access to her emails. If
she’s out, she can just check when
she gets home. She didn’t need to
download the plethora of mobile
applications so often associated
with people of our generation —
Snapchat, Tinder, Facebook and
Spotify come to mind — because
she just wouldn’t use them.
For my grandmother, an iPhone
(or an Android for that matter)
would be more bling than tool. The
implications of this interaction set
up camp in the back of my mind,
and I’ve since come to a somewhat
stunning conclusion: I hate what
my phone has done to me.
Studies show that 89 percent
of smartphone users aged 18 to
24 reach for their devices within
15 minutes of waking up in the
morning. People in the same
demographic exchange an average
of nearly 110 text messages every
day and are prone to texting more
than calling one another.
There
is
an
argument
in
there
somewhere
for
heightened
connectedness or for
encouraging
people
to communicate more
appropriately.
After
all, you can’t get away
with a phone call in
a movie theater, but
provided
that
you
reduce your screen’s
brightness,
texting
in that environment
isn’t all that taboo. But research
importantly reveals that texting
is making us conversation-phobic,
less sincere and in some cases,
more isolated and sleep-deprived.
So what are we clinging to?
Our parents used to have to
look up people’s phone numbers
and call them if they wanted to
talk; hell, so did we! There was
ceremony involved in sitting
down to catch up with someone
or making plans with them. But
hey, why hop on a quick phone
call to deliberate plans for going
out when we can take longer to
sort through scattered group text
conversations where everyone
receives the messages at slightly
varied time intervals?
People
used
to
read
newspapers.
Our
Facebook-
oriented generation scrolls down
newsfeeds. We wade through
trending videos of people dancing
to “Juju On That Beat,” 35-second
BuzzFeed Tasty food porn and
recycled articles from April about
Trump’s children forgetting to
register to vote in the primaries
before we happen upon our
current events and politics for the
day. At least I know how to make
cheeseburger onion rings!
Look, it’s not that I don’t like
the slow crumbling of my posture
brought on by texting, accidentally
bumping into people (or inanimate
objects) on my way to class or
feeling like I can’t enjoy a moment
unless I’ve chronicled it on my
Snap Story. These are tenets of
modern greatness! But the grass is
always greener on the other side.
On the days I’ve left my phone
at home before taking a walk in
the Arb, completely turned it
off in class or had a face-to-face
interaction without having a
device to divide my attention, the
experiences I’ve had have been
more meaningful and memorable.
Our use of technology isn’t
inherently bad or unnecessary,
but anything in excess can be
detrimental, and I think we have a
tendency toward excess. I’m all for
“connectedness,” but maybe the
irony is we can only achieve that
if we know how to periodically
unplug. In the meantime, I’ll be
researching flip phones.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, October 28, 2016
Going unplugged
As it currently stands, the
proposed legislation would prohibit
local governments from enacting
their own taxes or additional
licenses, require companies to
pay an annual fee and register
with the state, mandate state and
federal background checks and
annual safety inspections, and
compel drivers to take the most
direct route unless the passenger
specifies otherwise. Essentially,
the bills create a space for ride-
hailing services in the state’s laws,
but they don’t address some of the
more tenuous problems that come
along with these services.
First and foremost, there is a lack
of substance when it comes to the
enforcement of these regulations.
The bill notes the suspension or
revoking of licenses from drivers,
but no other punishments for the
company. Too often, customers
are taken advantage of by taxis
and ride-hailing options like Ubers
and Lyft. Though accountability
of some form exists due to the
GPS system, there are many
other methods by which a driver
can scam a customer, especially
tourists and out-of-state students
who may not know the area they
are traveling in very well.
That said, a potential positive
of the pending legislation is that it
avoids the mistakes that other local
governments have made, such as
that of Austin, Texas. Earlier this
year, Uber and Lyft pulled out of
the 11th-largest city in the United
States after the city proposed
strict regulations, including the
mandatory
fingerprinting
of
all drivers. In their attempt to
maintain the delicate balance
between safety and innovation,
local officials in Austin failed.
However,
the
motivation
behind the Austin policy — to
provide
maximum
safety
to
citizens — is understandable and
needs to be made a priority in
any new legislation that regulate
ride-hailing services. Among the
popularity of apps such as Uber
and Lyft, research suggests that
there has been an increase in
assaults against passengers in
ride-hailing taxi settings. Three
drivers in Chicago were charged
with sexually assaulting their
passengers over the course of
the past two years; in more
than one case, the victim was
highly intoxicated. A similar
assault occurred just last month
around San Diego, when an Uber
and Lyft driver was accused
of
assaulting
three
teenage
passengers. Perhaps the most
tragic and relevant example to
pinpoint the necessity of new
legislation occurred in February
in Kalamazoo, when Jason Dalton
killed six people and wounded two
others (while driving for Uber).
Hours
after
the
shootings,
he blamed his iPhone for the
attacks, saying that it directed
him both where to go and when
to shoot.
The evidence is clear that the
current state of the company’s
background
checks
is
simply
not doing enough to protect its
passengers. It is a reasonable
expectation of a customer that
when they download this app, they
will be transported safely from
one place to another by someone
who does not have a criminal
background and is mentally stable.
A recent bill in California makes
important strides in this respect.
This new bill prohibits companies
such as Uber and Lyft from hiring
registered sex offenders, as well
as those who have been convicted
of felonies or have driven under
the influence in the last seven
years and mandates a fine of
between $1,000 and $5,000 when
companies
violate
background
check rules. This bill supplements
the ride-hailing checks and provide
for the safety of millions of citizens
who use these services. Michigan
should take note.
Now that the Michigan state
legislature is seeking to bring more
regulation and specific legal status to
these ride-hailing companies, it is a
reasonable expectation that some of
these more substantial regulations,
like those that California has
implemented,
will
follow
and
provide more accountability and
safety to Uber and Lyft users across
the state of Michigan.
CHRIS
CROWDER
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
O
ne of the most likely
ways your friend, peer,
student or child will
die in college is by suicide.
Though researchers at the
University of Virginia have
found that college students are
less likely to commit suicide
than those of the same age (18
to 24) in the general population,
suicide is responsible for more
student deaths than alcohol
use. According to the American
Psychological
Association,
the 2010 National Survey of
Counseling Center Directors
reported that the incidence of
serious mental health issues
on campus has risen 16 percent
since 2000. The APA also admits
that though significant measures
have been put in place to address
students’ mental health concerns,
campus
counseling
centers
struggle to maintain expanding
student need. Something more
needs to be done.
The
American
College
Health Association National
College
Health
Assessment
for spring 2014 shows that
between spring 2013 and spring
2014, 13.5 percent of students
reported depression as a factor
that negatively affected their
studies. The percentage of
students who report depression
as a prominent factor affecting
their studies was much greater
than student reports of drug
and alcohol use, which stand
at 1.8 percent and 4.1 percent,
respectively.
Furthermore,
2.5 percent of college students
report
having
seriously
considered suicide.
Based on the ACHA data,
alcohol use may increase the
prevalence of suicidal ideation
among college students. As
alcohol use remains a salient
issue on campus, it could
be placed under the student
mental health umbrella, under
which all major student mental
health
concerns
could
be
prioritized based on student
need. The reported incidences
of
depression
and
suicidal
ideation should not be ignored,
nor should the link between
student behavior and mental
health. Let’s take a break from
facts and figures, and bring
this a little closer to home.
Self disclosure: As a current
graduate student in the School
of Social Work, I have been
diagnosed with anxiety and
depression, still struggle to
overcome it and have seriously
considered suicide at various
junctures in my life, roughly
beginning
when
I
was
a
teenager. There have been
numerous times when I was
afraid to talk about it with
others, and my fear often kept
me from acting authentically.
As an undergraduate transfer
student at the University of
Michigan, I was required to
participate in AlcoholEdu for
College, an online program
that has demonstrated success
in reducing high-risk behaviors
related to alcohol use among
students. Student drinking is
a public health concern, and
programs designed to address
the
issue
are
important
and can be effective, but I
wonder if ableism contributes
to the stigma attached to
conversations
about
suicide
and depression. A program
similar
to
AlcoholEdu
but
geared
to
positively
affect
students’ more pressing mental
health needs would confront
institutionalized
ableism
and address what appears to
be a greater student need. If
programs like AlcoholEdu have
been effective to limit risky
student
drinking
behaviors,
why have incoming students
(as freshmen or otherwise) not
been required to participate
in a similar online program
to address the more pressing
issue of student suicide and the
prevalence of depression?
On April 26, 2015, University
students gathered in the Diag
to show support for a student
who had posted a suicide
note on the social media app
Yik Yak. The note sparked a
larger discussion about the
reality of student suicide and
depression and the importance
of acknowledging the reality of
mental health issues on campus.
One student interviewed by
MLive discussed that though
Wolverines
compete
with
one another in the academic
setting, it is still important
to reach out in support and
demonstrate
concern
for
other
students’
well-being.
Some “yaks” posted to the site
after the incident stressed
the
importance
a
friend’s
intervention played in keeping
them safe.
Recent social work literature
would support what students
said in their “yaks.” In Barry
Duncan’s
edited
anthology,
“The
Heart
and
Soul
of
Change,” John Norcross, a
professor at the University of
Scranton, demonstrated that
the effective use of empathy
is among the most predictive
components
of
positive
psychotherapy
outcomes
—
even more so than deploying a
specific intervention model.
This leads me to believe that
students’
everyday
practice
of empathy can significantly
transform student experience.
An
educational
program
providing some basic empathic
techniques might be helpful
in reducing the incidence of
depression and suicidal ideation
among students, as well as
creating a more nurturing and
respectful student body. In
regard to the racism that exists
on campus as evidenced by the
recent flyer and hate speech
incidents, a more empathic
student body might not only
reduce
depression
among
students and begin to redress
ableism on campus, but also
might reduce the likelihood
of
racist
and
heterosexist
attacks on vulnerable groups
or individuals.
I echo the sentiment that
support from peers, often just
feeling listened to, has greatly
influenced my decision to keep
going. It’s time we speak up for
ourselves and one another and
consistently challenge each other
to learn to listen and confront
privilege and oppression.
Confronting ableism
NATHAN SCHMALL | OP-ED
Michael Sugerman can be reached
at mrsugs@umich.edu.
MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN
Chris Crowder can be reached at
ccrowd@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN
FROM THE DAILY
Bill should address Uber safety
O
ver a year ago, the Michigan House of Representatives began debating
the lack of regulations on ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft,
attempting to clear up the legal gray area in which these companies
have been operating. Now, the Michigan House Legislature is in the process
of considering a similar package of bills that would seek to address this issue,
as well as provide regulation for all transportation companies across the state.
Though this proposed legislation seeks to provide a necessary answer to
questions surrounding these companies place in the state of Michigan, it fails
to address certain aspects of safety and accountability that surround this issue.
Culture is not a costume
CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN
NATHAN SCHMALL
Nathan Schmall is a School of Social
Work graduate student.