Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, November 17, 2016
Action against DAPL needed
NOOR AHMAD AND ZACH KOLODZIEJ | OP-ED
N
ow
that
Donald
Trump
has
been
elected,
it
is
time
to face the truth about the
outcome of the Dakota Access
Pipeline. North Dakota is the
second-largest
domestic
oil
producer in the United States.
Trump
backs
measures
to
upgrade United States oil and
gas infrastructure and won the
state of North Dakota by a wide
margin.
Currently,
85
percent
of
the DAPL has been built. The
only part that remains is the
section planned to be built
under the Missouri River. This
past
Friday,
Kelcy
Warren,
the CEO of Energy Transfers
Partners,
the
Dallas-based
construction company in charge
of building the DAPL, stated
that
the
incoming
Donald
Trump administration is “100
percent sure” the pipeline will
be approved. This year, Warren
donated $103,000 to the Trump
campaign.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R
-
–N.D.) is a proponent of the
pipeline and serves as one of
Trump’s agricultural advisers.
He activated the North Dakota
National Guard to deal with
the protests, which currently
has a traffic checkpoint a
few miles south of the main
protest encampment. Though
the president-elect has yet to
comment on the pipeline, his
campaign financial disclosure
forms
reveal
that
he
has
a financial interest
in its
completion. He has reportedly
invested
between
$500,000
and $1 million in Energy
Transfer Partners.
The
#NODAPL
movement
in Standing Rock, N.D., is a
place that has stood in direct
opposition
to
environmental
devastation, as well as spiritual
and cultural genocide. The $3.7
billion Dakota Access Pipeline,
a black snake of fracked Bakken
crude oil, is planned to travel
under the Missouri River and rip
through the sacred land of the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It
is not a question of if, but when,
it will burst, destroying one of
the world’s largest sources of
freshwater and spilling 500,000
gallons of toxic sludge into what
is currently drinking water for
people of the Standing Rock
tribe and communities in South
Dakota.
Enbridge Energy Company,
which
has
the
largest
ownership stake in the Bakken
Pipeline — which includes the
DAPL — at nearly 30 percent,
is responsible for many U.S.
pipelines, including Michigan’s
own aging and crumbling Line
5 that transports tar sands
crude oil under the Straits of
Mackinac. We cannot forget
Enbridge’s
Line
6B
that
burst and contaminated the
Kalamazoo River in July 2010,
one of the severest and costliest
oil spills in U.S. history.
The
construction
and
inevitable spills of pipelines
in recent years have not only
wreaked
environmental
havoc, but continue the 500-
year genocide that threatens
to extinguish the natural way
of life that indigenous people
know to be a familial and
inseparable connection with
all of Earth.
From the occupation of a
prayer camp called the Sacred
Stone Camp — a paryer camp
established in April of 2016
by LaDonna Bravebull Allard
of the Standing Rock tribe —
the #NODAPL movement has
tremendously
expanded
to
become many camps. The camps
continue to grow daily — as a
gathering of water protectors
from hundreds of tribal nations
and
countries
standing
in
solidarity against the pipeline.
The message that has drawn
people to come together in
resistance and communal prayer
is the knowledge that water
is life. And it is the inarguable
attack upon life that has caused
the water protectors to react in
nonviolent direct action against
Dakota Access.
Water protectors literally
stand and live in the path set
for the Dakota Access Pipeline,
blocking
construction
with
their bodies. Law enforcement
departments from five states
and the National Guard have
been called in to intimidate,
attack,
arrest
and
forcibly
remove protectors with riot
gear
and
military
tanks.
County,
state
and
federal
government
officials
have
failed to condemn these acts
of excessive force, choosing
instead to side with corporate
interests.
On
our
campus,
an
interdisciplinary
group
of
students
has
come
together
to spread awareness at the
University of Michigan about
the DAPL. We have written a
comprehensive and educational
zine to explain the background
and timeline of the Standing Rock
Sioux, the cultural significance of
the water, the legal challenges at
play and the importance of the
current resistance. We hope this
publication serves to provide
critical information about the
resistance at Standing Rock so
you can best be of service and
navigate your role as an ally to
the indigenous people on the
frontlines.
The
#NODAPL
movement
of Standing Rock continues to
stay strong in the face of these
injustices through prayer that
roots protectors in love and
healing. As the inauguration
approaches, Dakota Access will
push harder to put the pipeline
through at all costs. Now more
than ever we need a strong
coalition of water protectors,
allies working in solidarity and
decisive action from the Obama
administration to reroute the
Dakota
Access
Pipeline
and
defend indigenous rights.
This Friday, Nov. 18, there will
be a zine-release fundraising
event for Standing Rock in
North Quadrangle Space 2435
from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. There
will be free food, zines, audio
interviews
and
information
about the moon dance ceremony,
as well as a visual gallery of the
occupation in Standing Rock,
N.D., and a drum circle. Contact
us at michsolidaritynodapl@
umich.edu.
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
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Noor Ahmad is an LSA senior and
Zach Kolodziej is an Art & Design
senior.
Address the reasons divestment keeps failing
ARI ALLYN-FUEUR | OP-ED
T
uesday
night’s
debate and vote on a
Boycott,
Divestment
and
Sanctions
divestment
resolution
against
Israel
would be exciting — if it
weren’t so repetitive. This is
the 10th time this spectacle
has taken place, and every
time, with a lot of acrimony,
the resolution is voted down
— and largely for the same
reasons. I support Palestinian
rights and statehood. I oppose
the construction of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank.
But I opposed this resolution.
And now, I’d like to send a
clear message to divestment
supporters,
identifying
the
things they can do to strengthen
the next divestment campaign
and enable a resolution to pass.
First, don’t make it a BDS
resolution. The BDS movement
is toxic because of both its
means and its ends. The BDS
platform is that Israel, and only
Israel, should be subjected to
total political, economic and
cultural boycott: Everything
Israeli should be totally off-
limits. And the BDS platform’s
express purpose, per its own
central committee members,
is to destroy Israel. This time,
divestment campaigners tried
to insist that their resolution
didn’t support these means or
ends, even as the text of the
resolution and the campaign
around it were all about BDS.
Next time, really and sincerely
cut yourself off from BDS.
Denounce it in the text.
Second, legislate a process,
not an outcome. This resolution
was directed solely against
Israel without any effort at
neutrality or consistency and
identified specific companies
to
target.
Pro-resolution
speakers
insisted
that
the
resolution was the beginning
of a conversation, but the
outcome was baked in. Next
time,
write
the
resolution
properly. Identify an objective
and neutral set of criteria for
divestment on human rights
grounds and empower a body
to apply them consistently to
every country and company the
University of Michigan invests
in. Or, better yet, empower
a body to take broad input
from students and professors
across the University to create
divestment criteria. And if
occupation
is
a
consistent
criterion for divestment, be
prepared to divest from Turkey,
China, India, Russia, Israel,
Morocco, Ethiopia, etc., for
their respective occupations.
Third,
be
extremely
scrupulous
about
avoiding
anti-Semitism. A lot of council
members voted no because they
were worried, reasonably, about
intercommunal stress. These
divestment campaigns are run
in such a manner that they
can reasonably be interpreted
as
attacks
against
Jewish
students.
The
Palestinian
campus group Students Allied
for
Freedom
and
Equality
began its divestment campaign
this
time
with
incendiary
public demonstrations against
Israel only, timed specifically
to take place during two major
Jewish holidays. Then, last
night, its speakers disparaged
anti-resolution
speakers
for
“hanging out at Hillel” and
“going on birthright.”
Last
year
when
this
resolution was up, it was
even worse. Jewish council
members were doxxed and
received death threats. SAFE
activists shouted ethnic slurs
on the Diag and posted online
under
their
own
names.
SAFE,
in
its
institutional
capacity,
protested
Central
Student Government inviting
a
University
of
Michigan
professor to speak on the
history of the region on account
of his Jewish ethnicity. Next
time, divestment supporters
should be extremely careful not
to do any of these things. They
should run their campaign in
a scrupulously non-prejudiced
manner, and act immediately
to condemn and correct any
prejudice instances that do
occur. That would do a lot to
reassure people.
Fourth, be open about the
process. This resolution was
launched as a sneak attack.
The vote was only announced
two days beforehand. Space
in the hall was limited with a
ticket process. The text of the
resolution wasn’t announced
until the day of the vote, and
even then, only by request. The
authorship of the resolution
was kept secret until halfway
through the council session,
and then disclosed only after
several points of order. Pro-
divestment council members
tried to insist that the council
vote secretly; they wanted
to enable people to pass the
resolution without owning up
to their support for it. These are
all red flags. Next time, write a
resolution you can proudly vote
on in public, and put the text
out with authorship well before
it’s introduced. Engage people
to figure out how to improve it
and address concerns.
With
these
measures,
a
divestment
resolution,
not
against
Israel,
but
against
human rights abusers defined
by
reference
to
objective
criteria, would enjoy a much
higher chance of passing. After
10 attempts, I think divestment
advocates owe it to themselves
more than anyone to take
their movement seriously and
address the mistakes of the
previous campaigns so they
can pass something productive.
And if they don’t? If the 11th
and 12th and 13th campaigns
look just like this one, with
a
BDS
resolution
against
Israel alone rushed through
with
the
greatest
possible
surreptitiousness amid a flurry
of anti-Semitism? That would
be a clear signal to the rest of
us about what the purpose of
these campaigns really is.
Ari Allyn-Fueur is a Ph.D. candidate
in the Department of Bioinformatics.
It’s #notmycampus — it’s ours
MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN
T
here have been many
“not mys” this week.
“Not
my
campus.”
“Not my president.” “Not my
country.” You’re all right —
these things are not yours.
They are ours. We should
be
concerned
by
how
polarized
things
seem,
and
perhaps by how we
may
be
complicit
in
amplifying
that
polarization.
What
we
share
and how we share
it
is
increasingly
contentious.
This
election
and
its
aftermath illustrate
as much.
This isn’t a call for unity.
Unity is overrated. We won’t
always agree on matters of
politics. In fact, it’s important
not to, because more often than
not, what makes a policy “good”
falls to normative judgment.
Sharing and debating a wide
swath of opinions is invaluable;
such discourse broadens our
collective
worldview
and
creates
the
framework
for
compromise.
Now more than ever we need
to (re)learn how to coexist,
and
to
approach
conflict
with civility and respect, not
judgment and violence. That
much is true regardless of the
candidate for whom you voted.
We are all human beings with
basic shared desires — these
include security and wellbeing,
with applications from physical
to financial to psychological.
Our individual pursuit of what
we need varies infinitely, but
at its core we can find common
ground.
If
you
didn’t
vote
for
Trump, consider why such
a vast portion of the United
States did. Know that their
frustration and anger might
have paralleled what you feel
now if Trump had lost. Many
Trump voters feel they are
being
mischaracterized
as
racist, bigoted xenophobes —
and yes, clearly, some of them
are this way — but why might
scores of people have voted for
him in spite of concerns about
his language?
Because they supported his
economic
policies?
Because
border definition and national
security
are
reasonable
concepts?
Because
Clinton
epitomized dynastic politics
and had so much baggage that
she didn’t seem worth it? The
list goes on. Trump’s following
should not be ignored, and
perhaps members of it have
been, in one way or another, for
quite some time.
If you did vote for Trump,
consider why such a vast
portion
of
the
country
didn’t.
Understand
why,
overwhelmingly,
people
of
color,
Latinx,
Muslims,
coalitions of women, those
who identify as LGBTQ+ and
more are so upset.
Understand
why
they feel unsafe.
Trump’s diction
throughout
his
campaign,
intentionally
or
not, has seemingly
made
these
contingencies even
more
subject
to
discrimination,
hate and violence
than they were before. We’ve
seen it in our Ann Arbor
bubble, and the reality is, many
who have been and are being
marginalized feel that having
voted for our president-elect
constitutes tacit approval of
these consequences.
Ultimately,
then,
now
is not the time for either
disillusionment or reticence.
These will exacerbate political
stratification and othering —
which we cannot afford.
If
you
signed
the
“#notmycampus”
petition,
I
think
you’re
misguided.
You
don’t
get
to
call
“microagression” when it suits
your agenda, but decry an
overly sensitive, “politically
correct” America when your
status quo is challenged.
If you’re so upset by the
election’s outcome that you
declare Trump is “not my
president” and the U.S. is “not
my country,” I think you may
be misguided, too. People of all
backgrounds talk about being
disenfranchised by the system
in one way or another, and the
reality is that in democracy,
we are all part of the system
in some capacity, even when
we feel outcast. Accepting this
isn’t
easy,
especially
when
the
institutional
odds
are
historically stacked against you.
Instead of retreating to
our corners, let’s talk to each
other. It’ll be hard. Emotional.
At
times,
triggering.
But
it will be necessary if we
have
any
hope
for some
semblance of reconciliation.
I think it’s going to require
adopting certain practices that
common opponents of “political
correctness”
hate:
creating
safe spaces, dispersing trigger
warnings and acknowledging
microaggressions
when
applicable.
Before
you
write
these
concepts off, consider that
labels tend to be more divisive
than the concepts they define.
Some say trigger warnings and
safe spaces are soft excuses
for
avoiding
conflict.
But,
if I suggested that we warn
students before a screening of
“A Clockwork Orange” (which
contains graphic rape scenes)
that its content could prove
traumatic for victims of sexual
assault, I doubt I’d be rebuked.
If I suggested implementing a
judgment-free zone for people
to ask difficult questions about
race for which they may feel
apprehensive, ignorant or just
plain stupid, my conjecture is
that few would object.
Don’t recuse yourself from
dialogue
that
makes
you
uncomfortable. Be open to ideas
you may disagree with, or even
those which may offend you, so
that we may find the common
ground underlying opposing
positions. On matters of policy,
know that it’s OK if we don’t
resolve our differences, but on
matters of humanity, know that
doing so is imperative.
We should all be outraged
by the crime alerts of the last
few days. So, regardless of your
political affiliation, be an ally
to the marginalized. This is a
term with which I wasn’t all
that familiar until recently,
and I turned to my Facebook
friends to help me define it.
They said “allying oneself”
to the marginalized entails
listening to them; protesting
alongside them even when our
experiences are not shared;
advocating fairness, equality
and equity; intervening when
we come into contact with
family, friends, acquaintances
and strangers alike who push
unjust rhetoric or ideology at
the expense of others.
It’s about asking people how
you can be helpful, even if you
don’t relate to what they’re
going through. Really, being
an “ally” is just having basic
human decency. We are all
capable of that.
The result of this election
is set in stone, and we need
to work together to move
forward from here. Facebook
posts
and
catchy
Twitter
hashtags
aren’t
enough.
Subversions of our democratic
systems, like petitioning the
Electoral College to change
the outcome, aren’t the answer
either.
Conversations
with
homogenous groups who share
our opinions will only further
divide us.
Do you want change? Let’s
be good to each other, even
when we disagree. Let’s do our
homework. Read newspapers,
get civically involved, vote and
start listening. We can do this.
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN
Michael Sugerman can be reached
at mrsugs@umich.edu.
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.