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.