I

’ll be honest: I think 
these 
next 
few 
years 

will probably be tough 

for people of marginalized 
identities. 
Many 
people 
in 

these groups, myself included, 
can only describe 
our 
expectations 

with 
one 
word: 

fear. Fear of the 
unknown, fear for 
our political system 
and, most of all, fear 
for my future as a 
young Black male in 
a country that more 
closely 
resembles 

the racist America I 
thought only existed 
in old photographs.

Luckily, I’m not alone in my 

despair. Roughly half of the 
nation awoke on the morning 
of Nov. 9 with a similar sense 
of trepidation. Here at the 
University of Michigan, my 
fears were shared by about 90 
percent of the student body, and 
Trump’s unexpected victory 
was met by demonstrations 
across campus.

“Ninety percent of (UM 

students) rejected the kind 
of hate … that was expressed 
during 
the 
campaign,” 

University 
President 
Mark 

Schlissel said at one of the most 
publicized 
demonstrations, 

which occurred the day after 
the election at a vigil on the 
Diag. He closed his address by 
reminding students that “this 
is the way America changes … 
for the better.”

His statement proved to be 

tendentious, as conservative 
students 
came 
out 
of 
the 

woodwork to challenge his gall. 
Their opposition to Schlissel’s 
comments culminated in the 
creation of the #NotMyCampus 
campaign 
— 
an 
effort 
to 

condemn the ostensibly liberal 
attitudes of top University 
administrators.

When I broke this news to my 

parents back home, they were in 
disbelief. “How could anybody 
be offended by what he said?” 
they asked. And sadly, I didn’t 
have a response for them. After 
over a week of contemplating, 
however, I’ve finally found an 

answer: The offended students 
simply 
misunderstand 
the 

fundamental purpose of these 
anti-Trump protests.

After sifting through many 

of the complaints lodged by 

conservatives, 
it’s 
apparent 
that 

they can be split 
into 
two 
groups: 

people 
offended 

that the University 
is 
espousing 

supposedly 
“anti-

Republican” 
ideas 

and people who don’t 
think that a public 
university 
should 

have 
any 
political 

opinions at all. 

The first group, disgruntled 

Republicans, is making the 
fatal mistake of categorizing 
anti-hate messages as anti-
Republican. During a typical 
election cycle, I would agree 
that 
President 
Schlissel’s 

comments were unnecessary. 

But, as all of our elders can 
attest, this was not a normal 
election. 
Donald 
Trump 

spent the past few months 
hurling objectively racist and 
sexist insults to anyone who 
opposed 
him. 
Denouncing 

that this rhetoric is not “anti-
Republican,” but instead is 
“pro-human 
decency.” 
If 

the 
Democratic 
candidate 

adopted Trump’s language on 
the campaign trail and then 
went on to win the national 
election, these protests would 
still be occurring. Calling out 

bigotry is not a partisan issue; 
it’s simply an issue of civility 
and moral integrity. Instead of 
viewing these protests as anti-
Republican, as many campus 
conservatives are doing, the 
correct way to judge them is 
as 
demonstrations 
against 

hateful and vile language (that 
just happened to be espoused 
by a Republican). In essence, 
these protests, and Schlissel’s 
remarks, are against Donald 
Trump’s divisive platform, not 
the party he represents.

The second group, people 

who believe the University 
administrator is in the wrong 
simply for making any political 
statements, is mistaken for 
similar reasons. Had Schlissel 
come out to condemn Trump’s 
tax policies or his views on the 
Second Amendment, I would 
also argue that his statements 
were unnecessary. However, 
Schlissel and protesters are 
not reacting to the factional 
minutiae of Trump’s policy 
proposals. 
Their 
responses 

are a direct response to the 
president-elect’s 
hateful 

bombasts 
that 
target 

members of the University 
community. As a campus full 
of undocumented immigrants, 
students of color, members of 
the LGBTQ community and 
other marginalized identities, 
it’s the University president’s 
job to ensure that we’re all 
welcome. 
Had 
President 

Schlissel 
not 
confronted 

Trump’s schismatic rhetoric, it 
would have been a dereliction 
of duty.

As much as we’d like to 

believe it, racism is not dead. 
If anything, this election has 
shown that over the past few 
decades, little has changed. 
Furthermore, progress won’t 
be 
made 
until 
Americans 

lambaste 
Trump’s 
hateful 

language. However, this will 
never 
occur 
until 
people 

realize that rejecting hate 
isn’t a partisan issue, but 
rather, it’s a matter of doing 
the right thing.

I

t should not come as a 
surprise to anyone that, 
in the wake of the 2016 

presidential election, Bernie 
Sanders is poised to become 
the kingmaker of the 
Democratic 
Party. 

Like a white-haired, 
elderly 
version 
of 

Marlon 
Brando 

with 
a 
Brooklyn 

accent, the Vermont 
senator’s influence is 
unmatched on Capitol 
Hill. The gatekeeper 
of progressivism, the 
populist 
champion 

of 
white 
working-

class voters in the 
primary, the key to millions of 
millennial voters ... For someone 
who started his presidential bid 
as a marginalized candidate, 
laughed at and cast aside, suffice 
it to say that Bernie Sanders is 
doing pretty well for himself.

For examples of Sanders’ 

Godfather-like stature, look no 
further than recent comments 
from Senate Minority Leader-
elect Chuck Schumer. The 
Huffington 
Post 
reported 

that Schumer is “all-in” on 
Sanders’ vision for the party, 
and Sanders reiterated his 
belief that Schumer “will do a 
great job.” Yes, this is the same 
Schumer that voted for the Iraq 
War, for the Patriot Act and for 
the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act 
who’s being endorsed by the 
most liberal voice in the Senate. 
But Bernie said it was OK, so 
critics on the left have stayed 
relatively 
quiet. 
That’s 
the 

power we’re talking about here.

Perhaps the more notable 

of 
Bernie’s 
hand-picked 

Democrats to help in the 
rebuilding of the party is Keith 
Ellison, who has served as a 
representative of Minnesota 
for about a decade. Ellison 
is 
originally 
from 
Detroit, 

graduated from Wayne State 
University and is the first 
Muslim elected to serve in 
Congress. He was one of 
the first elected officials to 
endorse Sanders over Clinton 
in the primary, and part of the 
reason he has garnished his 
reputation as a progressive 

is because of his association 
with the runner-up for the 
Democratic 
presidential 

nomination. 
Now, 
he 
is 

the 
overwhelming 
favorite 

to 
become 
the 

chairman 
of 

the 
Democratic 

National 
Committee, 
a 

position 
Donna 

Brazile 
resigned 

from in October. 

Make 
no 

mistake, 
this 

will be one of the 
most 
difficult 

jobs to undertake 
for the next four 

years. The next chairperson 
is responsible not only for 
organizing a party in disarray 
after an embarrassing loss 
but will also often be the 
figurehead of opposition to a 
Donald Trump administration. 
They 
will 
have 
unrivaled 

influence 
when 
it 
comes 

to 
funding 
and 
organizing 

congressional races in 2018 
(a year in which the Senate 
map does not look friendly for 
Democrats) and the selection of 
a presidential candidate in 2020.

This is why I would caution 

Democrats who are all too 
ready to jump on the Keith 
Ellison 
bandwagon. 
Bernie 

Sanders’ blessing is a coup 
for anyone looking to succeed 
with progressive voters today. 
He’s a great option. But take 
into account the fact that this 
job will be as much about tone 
as it is about content.

Some 
Democrats 
have 

responded to Ellison’s status 
as 
heir-apparent 
with 
an 

interesting, 
if 
unlikely, 

proposition: Joe Biden. They 
salivate over the idea of “Uncle 
Joe” taking the reins as a kind 
of post-vice presidency project, 
adding that this undertaking 
requires someone’s undivided 
attention and that Ellison will 
be busy fulfilling his duty as a 
congressman. Why? Because 
it’s Joe Biden’s tone that the 
Democratic Party needs right 
now. 

The Clinton campaign was 

at a disadvantage from the 

very beginning when it came 
to tone. Donald Trump and 
Bernie Sanders could be angry, 
they could yell and scream 
and wave their arms around 
in 
frustration. 
Meanwhile, 

double 
standards 
stripped 

Clinton of these tools; as a 
woman, whenever her voice 
went above a normal speaking 
volume or became the slightest 
bit aggressive, she was accused 
of being shrill and harpy-like. 
It seems as though the DNC is 
poised to put itself at the same 
disadvantage.

Keith Ellison is calm and 

collected. He looks and sounds 
like a professor in many ways. 
He 
doesn’t 
get 
animated, 

he doesn’t get loud. I’m not 
saying that’s a bad thing — I’m 
just saying that it’s not what 
Democrats need right now. 
Right now they need Uncle 
Joe. They need someone who 
can bridge the gap between 
the Obama coalition and the 
white working-class voter that 
abandoned 
Hillary 
Clinton. 

They need someone who can 
be stern yet statesmanlike, 
express anger and frustration, 
but do it in a productive 
way. Go re-watch his speech 
from this year’s Democratic 
National Convention — that’s 
what they need.

The work that Bernie Sanders 

is doing right now is important. 
He’s building an A-team of 
progressive 
lawmakers 
to 

act as a counterweight to 
the 
Trump 
administration, 

to lead a broken party in a 
new direction and to set up 
politicians 
like 
Elizabeth 

Warren for a potential run 
in 2020. But when it comes 
to the chairmanship of the 
DNC, there’s a discussion still 
to be had. The election is in 
February, and I’m not so sure 
that Keith Ellison is the right 
man for the job. A fired-up Joe 
Biden, ready to scream right 
back in Donald Trump’s face, 
though? Well that’s another 
story entirely.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 23, 2016

— Michigan state lawyers in last week’s response to a lawsuit filed 

on behalf of Detroit Public School children. 

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

But as important as literacy may 
be, the United States Supreme 

Court has unambiguously rejected 

the claim that public education 

is a fundamental right under 
the Constitution. Literacy is a 

component or particular outcome 
of education, not a right granted to 

individuals by the Constitution.”

Pressing pause on the new DNC

New conversations on Thanksgiving

ANTHONY COZART | OP-ED

T

hanksgiving might be 
a little different this 
year. 
Yes, 
there 
will 

still be turkey, madness on 
Black Friday and Ohio State 
versus Michigan on Saturday. 
However, many of us are facing 
difficult 
and 
uncomfortable 

political discussions with family. 
Even if the subject is avoided on 
Thursday, our feelings will still be 
present and conflict more likely. 
Several of my friends have since 
changed their travel plans, and, 
as we saw in a recent New York 
Times article, they’re not alone.

How 
can 
we 
make 

Thanksgiving this year just a 
little bit better? Perhaps to break 
the ice, or instead of avoiding 
politics 
entirely, 
consider 

discussing the value behind 
Thanksgiving: gratitude.

Many of us already, sort of, do 

this. In my family, we each say 
one or two things we’re thankful 
for before eating. For me, this 
has often meant acknowledging 
positive 
experiences 
or 
the 

chance to see my brother 
who lives across the country. 
Being mindful and thankful 
in this way isn’t bad. Yet being 
thankful for things or successes, 
as opposed to acknowledging 
our gifts and responsibilities, 
leaves the most important ideas 
about our privilege unsaid.

By doing so, we fail to see 

our own privileges accurately 
and 
to 
acknowledge 
our 

responsibilities. All of us at 
the University of Michigan 
have reasons to be thankful, 
even if in the weeks following 
the election it may not feel 
this way. We’re all gifted, be it 
with numbers, words, sound 
or 
athletics. 
Though 
hard 

work may have contributed to 
our successes, the support of 

those around us has allowed 
us to develop our gifts (which 
we don’t morally deserve) into 
talents and abilities. Honesty 
is acknowledging the role of 
our gifts and of others, not 
our work ethic, in our success. 
With these privileges comes a 
responsibility — the etymology 
of the word is response to one’s 
actions and abilities — to others.

David Brooks’ most recent 

book, “The Road to Character,” 
put 
this 
practice 
— 
of 

acknowledging success but not 
our gifts and responsibilities 
— 
into 
broader 
context. 

Our 
culture 
has 
shifted 

dramatically since the 1940s, 
from one in which individuals 
practiced 
self-effacement 

and restraint to one of self-
promotion 
and 
expression. 

We’re told from a young age and 
at each graduation ceremony in 
our lives that we alone can do 
anything. We’re encouraged 
to focus on ourselves and not 
others. In our meritocratic 
society, 
borrowing 
Brooks’ 

words, the “Big Me” dominates.

The election demonstrated 

the prevalence of this outlook. 
Voters 
from 
both 
parties 

expressed anxieties about their 
jobs and concerns for their own 
families and religious values. 
This isn’t a bad thing; issue 
voting helps to set the political 
agenda and the priorities of 
government agencies. But so 
much of politics has become 
about me: my problems, my 
anxieties 
and 
my 
country. 

Trump arguably is the Biggest 
Me: 
He 
repeatedly 
touts 

his fame, business and $3.3 
billion name. With Brooks’s 
thesis in mind, Trump’s wide 
support becomes a bit easier to 
understand.

We’ve given less thought to 

our neighbors, communities and 
the needs of others, in both our 
personal and political lives. We 
craft our own success stories — 
personally, for example, how I got 
into graduate school here — yet 
we give little attention to our gifts, 
graces and responsibilities. Few, 
including me, acknowledge that 
success often comes at the expense 
of our peers. Our culture’s shift 
toward the Big Me makes having 
conversations about politics, which 
many of us feel are so desperately 
needed, even more difficult.

It doesn’t have to be this way, 

as Brooks writes. We can start 
to change this Thanksgiving. 
Instead 
of 
fighting 
over 

candidates, 
ask 
your 
family 

about the sacrifices they’ve made 
for one another. Listen to their 
thoughts on privilege. Discuss 
what responsibilities we have to 
others. Craft your stories from 
the 
semester 
differently, 
by 

acknowledging your gifts and 
privileges as opposed to your 
successes and hard work.

Consider another example: 

Thirty-three 
years 
ago 
this 

weekend, 
Bo 
Schembechler 

told his players to recognize the 
effects of their actions on the 
team in everything that they 
did on campus. Each player had 
a responsibility derived from 
his gifts and support from the 
University to his line mates, 
coaches and the team. Let’s think 
differently and more deeply 
about gratitude to get through 
this week. We might even have 
another thing to be thankful for 
on Saturday afternoon.

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

Anthony Cozart is a graduate 

student in the Ford School of Public 

Policy.

Jason Rowland can be reached at 

jerow@umich.edu

A campus divided

JASON

ROWLAND

JASON ROWLAND | COLUMN

BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN

BRETT

GRAHAM

Brett Graham can be reached at 

btgraham@umich.edu

HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING! 

The offended 
students simply 
misunderstand 
the fundamental 
purpose of these 

anti-Trump 

protests. 

