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.

