A sk anyone who has ever stepped foot into a high school, and they’ll tell you that high school is nothing like the way it’s portrayed in movies. People don’t jump on to lunch tables and break into perfectly choreographed musical numbers, nor are the walls adorned with larger- than-life murals of the school’s star basketball players. (OK, so maybe I’m pulling from one movie in particular, but you get the gist). Hollywood’s portrayal of college, however, isn’t far off. Walk into any college fraternity party, and all the movie tropes are there: beer pong, the all-mysterious “jungle juice,” speakers blasting the top 40 hits and a packed dance floor occupied by many, many couples locked at the lips in the throes of passion. At my first college party, it didn’t take long for me to realize that not many of those “couples” were actually in committed relationships; rather, they were just engaging in a party activity so popular that there’s even an Instagram page dedicated to it: making out with strangers. Coming from a rather conservative upbringing, the whole party atmosphere was a culture shock for me, but the discovery that hookup culture is alive and real shocked me most of all. You see, I’m a romantic at heart, and what I was seeing around me seemed to defy my very definitions of love and relationships. As I watched my friends so easily accept and join this culture, I felt stuck and alone, isolated in this fast and casual world by my notions of romance and having one true love. What’s wrong with me? I thought as the girls around me gossiped about all the boys they’d kissed the night before. Am I the only one not enjoying this? I’d wonder as I yet again squirmed away from a boy who got too close at a party. For a long time, I grappled with the feeling that perhaps I was behind the times. Perhaps I was too prudish for this new society, which had fully embraced its own sexuality and freedom. Or maybe proponents of hookup culture knew something I didn’t: Maybe they knew that Mr. Right would not come along and sweep me off my feet, no matter how long I waited, and I might as well have some fun. “Hookup culture makes me so sad. Is romance dead?” I texted a friend once, in melodramatic despair. “Is love just a farce?” My tender heart was breaking at the thought. She messaged back promptly, with a question I had never once considered: “Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?” It was such an obvious question, yet never one that had even crossed my mind, as I’d just automatically decided in my mind that love and hookup culture were polar opposites: neither could live while the other survived. Dr. Zhana Vrangalova, renowned sex researcher who delivered the TEDx talk “Is Casual Sex Bad For You,” would beg to differ. In an interview with Vogue’s Karley Sciortino, Vrangalova stated: “Sex and love are two separate needs, and humans have both of them … Just because you have sex with a lot of people doesn’t mean that you don’t need love and relationships — people will want that no matter what. However, people may decide to postpone love and relationships in order to have more sex, because we live in a culture that doesn’t leave room for open relationships for the most part. But there is no research suggesting that having a lot of casual sex will somehow impede your ability to have relationships or form intimacy in the future.” Our generation is known to engage in more premarital sex with more partners while holding off on marriage for longer than generations past, but that doesn’t mean the sanctity of marriage is suffering for it. Rather, marriages that begin later in a couple’s life have a lower chance of divorce than those that begin in a couple’s early 20s. That means that marriages today might even last longer than those of our parents’ generation. In short, hookup culture in college does not infringe on love and romance in our futures. To my fellow romantics out there: fear not. Hookup culture does not mean the death of our hopes and dreams. It can be difficult to classify this culture as “good” or “bad,” and I have concluded that it is neither — instead, it is merely a byproduct of social progress, and we are free to follow it or leave it; neither path is more righteous than the other. L ast Saturday, I joined more than 8,000 people in front of the Michigan Capitol for the Women’s March on Lansing. Over these past few days I have tried to qualify what I felt and experienced in words, but honestly, all my attempts so far have seemed cheap. And while it was the Women’s March, I feel it’s important to explain why I, as a man, chose to participate. I marched for my immigrant father who is most at risk if President Trump’s Muslim Registry becomes reality. I marched for my mother and sister whose hijabs mark them as targets for the hateful, xenophobic factions of our country. I marched for my little brother who should know there is nobility when men stand for women’s rights. My family was not with me in Lansing, but I saw many other families. Parents brought their children, even infants in strollers, to this historic moment. An elderly couple came to what I learned was their first protest. A girl a few years younger than myself ran around wrapped in a rainbow pride flag, a giant smile on her face. I marched because Planned Parenthood gave my mom her first job as a nurse. I marched because without Medicare, my grandfather would have likely been uninsured because of his Parkinson’s disease. I marched because, as an aspiring public health practitioner, I know that closing clinics and gutting the former President Barack Obama’s health care law are terrible ideas. One of the speakers at the march, a Central Michigan University student, told the crowd about her Planned Parenthood experience. She recounted how the “pro-life” protesters outside the clinic made her feel. She said that the first thing the staff at Planned Parenthood did was make sure she was healthy. She told us not once did she feel pressured into getting an abortion. I marched because, though I was born in the heartland of this country, I am still seen as an outsider. I marched in solidarity with Black and Latin Americans because I, too, have been profiled by law enforcement because of my identity. I marched because “law and order” should not be code for marginalization. I marched because my transgender friends need less to worry about, not more. I marched because my lesbian, gay and bisexual friends have told me that the struggle for their equality did not end in June 2015. I marched because loving who you love and freely engaging with the world as your true gender are human rights. People of every ethnicity, gender, age and ability shared space on the wet grass that afternoon. Many people waved signs with Shepard Fairey’s images of a Muslim woman in a star-spangled hijab, a Black woman with cornrows and a Latina woman with a flower in her hair. The organizers had reserved seats at the front of the gathering for those with mobility issues. An Indian man graciously offered to take a picture of me on my phone. I marched for all men who, during Obama’s and former Vice President Joe Biden’s administration, had role models who told them to step up and be better. I marched because President Donald Trump is the bombastic embodiment of toxic masculinity. Gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer said that the uncle who mistakenly voted for Trump is not the enemy; it is Trump himself. I agree. I have a friend, a Hispanic woman, who voted for Trump and I am not ashamed to say that I can sympathize with her reasons for doing so. We must buck our pride and rebuild burned bridges with the people in our lives who disagree with us. If nothing else, at least we will learn why they voted for a man so many have come to fear. I also agree with Dr. Farha Abbasi, assistant professor of psychiatry at Michigan State University, who said in a thick Pakistani accent that she was the United States of America. The unity on that day in Lansing and across the world — as millions came together in defense of what is right — was amazing. I just hope that this unity turns into an organized front against Trump and his Cabinet, and that all those marchers in swing states like Michigan will vote in 2018 and 2020. The 10 Actions/100 Days campaign is promising but the motivation must be sustained. Did it bother me that the march was women-centric and that there were signs proclaiming, “The future is female?” No. The Women’s March on Lansing was neither about me nor for me, but I still felt that my attendance was necessary and valuable. I marched because as a privileged man, it is my duty to stand up for the rights of those threatened by sexism. I marched not to take over women’s spaces but to be an ally. I marched because I am trying to be the best feminist and ally that I can be. One of my favorite memories was joining an impromptu march down a street and receiving a car horn salute from drivers stopped at an intersection. (A close second would be a papier-mâché Gov. Rick Snyder holding a cup of poisoned water.) The events worldwide on Jan. 21 prove that the movement toward equity and social justice has broad support. Those who oppose this movement should take note: you cannot silence us. While I still cannot do my experiences and emotions at the Women’s March on Lansing justice in written form, a few words seem appropriate. The march was inspiration. It was hope. It was defiance. It was peace. It was inclusivity. It was diversity. It was unity. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Friday, January 27, 2017 There are no alternative facts MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN W hen asked why Sean Spicer, the newly- christened White House Press Secretary, outright lied about the size of the crowd at President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President, provided a … different perspective. “You’re saying it’s a falsehood,” she said to NBC’s Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” “And they’re giving … alternative facts.” Alternative facts. I was incredulous, and apparently the internet was, too. The clip and the new term went viral, as the gaffes of prominent political figures often do. What is a “fact?” A quick Google search will tell you it’s “a thing that is indisputably the case.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “a piece of information presented as having objective reality.” With facts, there isn’t wiggle room. With the perception of facts, on the other hand, there may be nuance. My friend and fellow Daily columnist Roland Davidson put it well a year ago in relation to competing understandings of capitalism: “Each individual’s definition comes from their own political location.” Rest assured, I’m not going to rationalize Conway rationalizing Spicer rationalizing indisputably false crowd statistics. However, I’d like to share some related learnings from courses that have seriously forced me to question my approach to facts in a way that I think may be more valuable. The first class centered on how governments can create policies that focus on apologizing, reconciling and administering reparations to historically subjugated and discriminated- against groups. One of my primary takeaways was that “truth” is rarely universal, and what becomes historical record may leave out the perspectives of the marginalized. People live and experience different truths, and our mass understanding of those truths is often passed through a gauntlet that filters out specific identities on the basis of a power structure. One paragraph from a recent reading in a class on social justice development explains this nicely. In “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” Linda Tuhiwai Smith explains, “Writing or literacy, in a very traditional sense of the word, has been used to determine the breaks between the past and the present, the beginning of history and the development of theory.” She later elaborates that these limitations, among others, have often restricted the proliferation of indigenous groups’ narratives in previously colonized areas of the world. Concrete example: Was Columbus a discoverer or a murderer? Both? Which of these presentations is the “alternative” one? Maybe it’s a question of who’s telling the story, and clearly, it’s influenced by whether or not all the facts are present in the first place. The combination of the two courses in particular adds to this train of thought. One focused on how media can influence political behavior and the other focused on how utilizing concepts of behavioral psychology can change the policy implementation process. Both included discussions about motivated reasoning, an umbrella theory that explains that we have competing goals — accuracy and group belonging — ruled by emotions, not rationality. It is widely accepted that people would much rather believe they’re right and find resources to confirm their beliefs (or dispute others’) than admit their views might be flawed. Ultimately, then, “alternative facts” don’t exist. Period. But what we believe is dependent upon myriad factors: our own identities, where we grow up, what we’re taught, who teaches us, the materials with which we’re taught and what those materials either include or don’t include. Historical erasure and suppression exist. Motivated reasoning exists. The reality that we are not all exposed to others’ perspectives on a daily basis exists. Fact (hold the alternative): there is a great deal of information dispersed without nuance or the full representation of all those affected by its delivery. The University of Michigan has been incredibly formative for me in this regard. I’ve learned how easy it can be to disregard specific groups and the subsequent actions some take to rationalize the status quo when a changing reality spawns discomfort. I’ve also come to realize how necessary it is to challenge the status quo instead of succumb to it. In regard to Trump’s inauguration, photo evidence is as empirical as it gets. The end game: Moving forward, it will be of collective importance to talk about eliminating barriers to unheard narratives, not bicker about crowd sizes. I hope our federal government will do the same. REBECCA LERNER Managing Editor 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. EMMA KINERY Editor in Chief ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY and REBECCA TARNOPOL 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 Megan Burns Samantha Goldstein Caitlin Heenan Jeremy Kaplan Max Lubell Alexis Megdanoff Madeline Nowicki Anna Polumbo-Levy Jason Rowland Ali Safawi Kevin Sweitzer Rebecca Tarnopol Ashley Tjhung Stephanie Trierweiler EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Michael Sugerman can be reached at mrsugs@umich.edu. Why I marched ALI SAFAWI | OP-ED Romance and hookups can coexist ASHLEY ZHANG | COLUMN Ashley Zhang can be reached at ashleyzh@umich.edu. Ali Safawi is an Editorial Board member. NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU MASS MEETING — MONDAY, JANUARY 30 at 7PM ARE YOU OPINIONATED? INTERESTED IN WRITING? LOVE DISCUSSING CURRENT EVENTS? Join us in our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. to learn how you can become a part of the Opinion section as a writer and/or Editorial Board member. Contact opinion@michigandaily.com for more information. MICHAEL SUGERMAN ASHLEY ZHANG Hookup culture does not mean the death of our hopes and dreams.