FROM THE DAILY

Standing with our students
L

ast Friday, Jan. 27, President Donald Trump issued an executive order barring
the immigration of people from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days,
suspending most refugee resettlement for 120 days and indefinitely barring the

resettlement of all eligible Syrian refugees in the United States. The affected countries
include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The controversial order
has resulted in much backlash from various groups, including religious organizations,
academics and tech companies. It has also stirred fear and uncertainty among Muslim
and international communities. In response to this order, University of Michigan
President Mark Schlissel issued a statement emphasizing the University’s commitment
to protecting all its students — both domestic and international — despite pressure
from the federal government. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board commends the
University’s prompt statement following the executive order and stands in solidarity
with our University’s students and staff who are affected by this ban.

“T

his American Life”
recently broadcasted
a
piece
on
the

DeploraBall, an alt-right party
celebrating
President

Donald
Trump’s

inauguration. At one
point,
Zoe
Chace,

“This American Life”
producer,
begins

questioning an attendee
about why they retweet
David Duke, former
Imperial Wizard of the
Ku Klux Klan, despite
claiming to disagree
with what he says. One
answer came up again and again.
To the attendees, Duke is a troll. He
doesn’t actually believe that Jewish
people secretly control the global
government or that all Mexicans
should be deported. He just wants
to rile people up. It’s a comment on
freedom of speech. Duke is really
fighting against the boogeyman of
political correctness.

I think there are many factors

at play here. Our nation’s failure
to have a continuous conversation
on civil rights since the 1960s has
helped create an environment
where racism is seen as a relic
and racist sentiments are only
expressed ironically. Additionally,
communities
have
become

increasingly segregated so these
people can’t put a face to their
rhetoric. But, more importantly, it’s
emblematic of the way that people
on the far right have co-opted civil
rights discourse to their own ends.
At times, this has been explicit. Sen.
Ted Cruz (R–Texas) once claimed
that school choice is the “civil rights
issue of the 21st century.” It goes
without saying that he’s actively
opposed issues supported by actual

activists, like policing reform and
protecting our LGBTQ citizens.

However,
this
appropriation

of civil rights rhetoric happens in

much more nefarious
ways.
Controversial

public
figure
Milo

Yiannopoulos’
book

“Dangerous”
is

advertised in Amazon’s
censorship section, next
to activists who have
been
imprisoned
by

oppressive regimes for
their
anti-totalitarian

writings.
What
has

Yiannopoulos sacrificed

for his beliefs? Well, he’s been banned
from Twitter after helping launch a
racist harassment campaign against
“Ghostbusters” actor Leslie Jones.

Yiannopoulos’
understanding

of Twitter bans is best expressed
in this tweet: “Easiest way to
get banned on Twitter: criticise
or ridicule feminism or Black
Lives Matter. This is political.”
Obviously, people should have the
right to critique those movements,
and societies have often benefited
from gadflies who relentlessly
question that which we hold
sacred. But Yiannopoulos has
no interest in that. He wants to
destroy individuals with whom he
disagrees. Yiannopoulos is a bully
and it’s easy to stand up to one
bully but not hundreds of faceless
Twitter accounts.

This anti-democratic tendency to

use freedom of speech, and Twitter
in particular, as a cudgel against
political opponents is epitomized by
Trump. One of the most disturbing
things on the campaign trail last
year was when Trump was asked
a tough question at a town hall
meeting by a private citizen, Lauren

Batchelder, and he chose to retaliate
by erroneously claiming she was
a plant by the Jeb Bush campaign.
Afterward,
throngs
of
Trump

supporters dug up Batchelder’s
personal contact information, a tactic
known as “doxing.” She received
death threats daily.

To people truly concerned about

freedom of speech, this should be
extremely worrying. People are
going to have second thoughts
about publicly disagreeing with
our president and members of the
alt-right after seeing this terrifying
troll fusillade. As the saying goes,
your freedoms end where another’s
begin. Harassment is not protected
by the First Amendment, and it
presents a threat to our democracy
by making people feel physically
unsafe expressing their political
opinions. I’m not calling for our
entire society to become a safe
space or for weaker protections of
freedom of speech; I’m calling for
the ones that exist to be enforced.

More than any other pillar of

political rights, freedom of speech
has been hijacked by figures such
as Yiannopoulos. By framing their
actions as an attack on political
correctness, they find an audience
far beyond their white nationalist
clique. All rights have limits and
speech is no exception. However,
society will only reject odious
hate speech once it understands
that
these
“provocateurs”
are

anything but. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant, and revealing the true
nature of the alt-right’s hate speech
is the best way to undermine its
claims as the vanguard of freedom
of speech.

M

y dad has a saying
he used to preach to
me and my brothers:

“Knowledge is power.”
Often shortened to
the acronym “KIP,”
every
repetition
of

the
phrase
invited

an annoyed look and
eye roll from me. Yet,
as I grew older and
realized my father
wasn’t
as
clueless

as
my
seven-year-

old self thought him
to be, I began to
experience the true importance
and relevance of what he meant.

I went to a public school in

suburban Cincinnati, and because
of the three lines of my address, it
happened to be a highly-funded
one, dubbed a “good” public
school.
Because
of
property

taxes and a legacy of supporting
teachers, the district I grew up
in was a true testament to the
power of public education. There
was diversity in every shape and
form:
socioeconomic
status,

race, background, interests, etc.
Passing our city’s levy was never
an issue and funding to the
arts, though arguably less than
sports, was still significant. Our
graduation rate never faltered
below 90 percent, and test
scores were always at or above
average. My high school, in
short, was the epitome of a
quality public education.

My school district provided

me with experiences that I could
talk about on my college essays,
allowing me to directly answer the
common and overused question
of how I participated in activities
“both inside and outside the
classroom.” I had the opportunity
to get involved in numerous sports
teams and arts programs while at
the same time taking AP classes
and cultivating a passion for
learning. I was subsequently able
to apply to and attend a prestigious
university
and
continue
my

education in the hopes of pursuing
a career of my choice.

My education story may be

similar to your own, but for many
others, education is plagued
with inequality. The disparity in
the public school system makes
education no longer a strength
for the future but a liability,
and
Betsy
DeVos’s
pending

confirmation as the Secretary of
Education is not a remedy for the
situation, but an aggravator.

The
Daily
published

an
editorial
last
semester

denouncing DeVos’s involvement
in Detroit’s public school system
and the danger of her policy

tactics on improving
public education post-
nomination.
I
echo

these sentiments, and
as a product of the
public school system,
I echo them fervently.
Betsy
DeVos
has

long been an ardent
supporter of privatizing
education in the form
of
charter
schools

and
vouchers.
Her

approach to education is one
that focuses on public school
alternatives, instead of public
schools
themselves.
DeVos

has financially supported and
pioneered
numerous
school

choice
ventures,
including

lobbying groups and voucher
programs. But her approach
to education reform, like the
approaches of many others, is
ignoring a vital component of
education — teachers.

I attended a great public

school, but what made my
education powerful was the
quality of teaching I had along
the
way.
Education
reform

has been focused on relieving
inequality through funding and
the wages of teachers, but always
seems to disregard inequality
in teaching quality. DeVos’s
support of privatization is taking
a political and financial stance
on reform but ignoring other
vital parts of education policy:
the men and women at the front
of the classroom.

The
number
of
students

enrolled in public schools is set
to increase by 3 percent to 51.4
million students in 2025. The
National Center for Education
Statistics
shows
individual

state enrollment is projected to
increase by even more. Granted,
some states will see a lowering
in enrollment, but the general
trend shows a shift toward an
increased number of students
in public schools. This growing
number of students in public
education means the vital and
impactful
student-teacher

interactions will increase. While
DeVos sees school choice in the
form of charter schools and
vouchers as a way to mitigate
inequality in education, her
aversion
to
improving
the

fundamental problems of public
schools is detrimental.

Instead of facing the everyday

issues
of
public
schools,

particularly those in inner-city
districts, the nominee has a
track record of pouring billions
of
dollars
into
alternative

educational systems. But now
isn’t the time to jump ship,
even if the ship is leaky. No,
now is the time to patch it up.
However, with a captain like
DeVos, abandoning ship seems
more her style. The broadcasted
confirmation hearing proved her
lack of experience in the field of
education. I, myself, and many of
you, have more experience when
it comes to public education
than the woman who has been
nominated to reform the system.

Yet, regardless of who is leading

reform, the quality of teachers has
never been a focused component
of
policy.
Monetary
funding

is a policy lever that is sure to
alleviate those failing public
schools, but improving teacher
preparation programs could do
so as well. What I learned through
my education was powerful, yet
much of the power came from
the interactions I had with my
teachers. Each one, regardless of
whether I conventionally liked
them or not, was qualified and
driven in what they did.

The downward death spiral

of public schools in inner cities
begins when the most unqualified
teachers are hired at schools
because
of
underemployment.

Unlike,
say,
medical
school,

teacher
preparation
programs

are not uniform. There is a lack
of
thorough
standardization

between programs, resulting in
some of the teaching force being
underprepared for the classroom.
A recent Department of Education
initiative stressed the idea of
improving teacher preparation as
a gateway to improving student
achievement. A policy that looks
beyond simply increasing funding
but also at the teachers we are
putting in classrooms is one that
could have dramatic effects.

While
DeVos’s
nomination

is
a
fundamental
threat
to

public schools, at a deeper level
it is a threat to empowering
all
American
students
with

knowledge. As my dad would say,
“knowledge is power,” and by
disregarding the power a good
public school can have and further
abandoning improvement of the
traditional system altogether,
DeVos’s policy approach will
make education a weakness.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 31, 2017

W

ait, President Donald
Trump
didn’t
just

use a quote from

“Bee Movie” in his
inauguration speech,
did
he?
Barry
B.

Benson, one of the bees
in the Bee Movie, and
the president’s images
were
side
by
side

with a supposed “Bee
Movie” quote below:
“We are one colony —
and their pain is our
pain. Their dreams are
our dreams; and their
success will be our
success. We share one heart, one
hive, and one glorious destiny.” It
looked like Trump just replaced
the word “colony” with “nation”
and “hive” with “home.” No, this
was a complete hoax.

Around the same time, there

was an uproar of a dog being put
in rushing water on the set of
the film, “A Dog’s Purpose.” The
dog was seen being put in the
water by a trainer, and it looked
like the dog was uncomfortable.
Later, we see the dog swimming
in the water. But it turns out that
the clips were cut and from two
totally different time periods.
The video was shot over a year
ago and is just now (right before
the movie’s premiere) being
brought
into
the
spotlight.

Claims of animal cruelty were
deemed false because the trainer
was just trying to acclimate the
dog to the water, and the trainer
didn’t put him in the water that
day. The clip of the dog in the
water was from later during
the filming when the dog was
actually comfortable.

Many people shared these two

“stories” before the truth came
out and believed them as real.
It isn’t their own fault. Many
journalists and other people want
to get their two cents in first,

without digging in a little deeper
to see if they’re actually facts. In
some news cycles, there’s more

emphasis on having
the scoop instead of
getting it completely
right. I almost fell for
them myself, but did
a little more research
because
I’ve
been

bamboozled before.

The overwhelming

presence
of
fake

news in our society
is
destroying
the

reputability
and

the prestige of the

journalism
profession.
For

example,
Sean
Spicer,
White

House press secretary, can claim
that Trump’s inauguration was
the most watched in person and
on television, when the most
viewed in person title belongs to
former President Barack Obama
and the most television viewers
belongs again to Obama, shortly
followed by former President
Ronald Reagan. Yes, Reagan
didn’t have streaming sites like
Facebook and YouTube, but the
numbers for Trump’s statistics
on those sites haven’t even been
released in full yet. How can you
make such a claim by ballparking
and without concrete data?

Both sides of the political

spectrum can take a hit when the
opposing side takes a claim from
someone in power as truth when
it’s really an “alternative fact.”
It’s disheartening and downright
infuriating because some people
aren’t willing to do the research,
and even if they did, might not
be persuaded to think differently
once they saw the truth. Both
members of the left and right can
be guilty of this, and it’s damaging
to social and political progress.

When fake news or false

reports accuse someone like
Trump, it just gives him and

everyone on his side more fuel
power. Seriously, what were
people going to think when
Buzzfeed released an exposé
about Trump’s alleged long-time
ties to Russia when the intel isn’t
even confirmed? Trump and
Tomi Lahren, a conservative
political
commentator,
will

rightfully exclaim that the news
is fake (even though they have
said this about accurate stories
as well). Those claims are true
because it just isn’t right to make
a false claim. Doing that lessens
the power of the actual truth.
Whomever is accused can deem
it to be fake, and most who have
their back will blindly follow
their lead.

The integrity of news is at

stake. There are so many sites
at our disposal that sometimes
it’s difficult to separate fact from
fiction. I believe publications such
as Vox and The New York Times
do an excellent job of thoughtful
and in-depth reporting, but it
takes one site and one wrong
story going big to lower the
trustworthiness of a legitimate
story in someone’s eyes.

As citizens of the United States,

with freedom of the press as an
amendment in our Constitution,
we deserve nothing but honest
news. And we have a responsibility
to do extra research on whatever
stories we read, especially when
they involve an arena as important
as politics. It’s tougher now to
determine when stories are true
from looking at just one source
(especially if it doesn’t have a
history for being reputable). Do
your research thoroughly and
inform others if they don’t have
their facts straight. Read more
than the headline. Everything is
not what it seems.

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

Chris Crowder can be reached at

ccrowd@umich.edu.

Knowledge is power

ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN

Roland Davidson can be reached at

mhenryda@umich.edu.

Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached

at anuroy@umich.edu.

Research your news feeds

CHRIS

CROWDER

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

ANU ROY-

CHAUDHURY

ROLAND

DAVIDSON

Freedom from speech

ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN

We applaud Schlissel’s rapid

and supportive response to the
harm and worry our University
community members may have
experienced as a result of Trump’s
action. The University’s statement
reaffirmed its commitment to
keeping
students’
immigration

statuses
private
and
refused

to partner campus police with
immigration enforcement actions
— with the exception of when
absolutely required by law to
do so. This is an important step
in reassuring students that the
University will stand with them in
these uncertain times.

Trump’s
executive
order

indicates a larger problem with
the goals of those leading our
country.
It
is
fundamentally

unacceptable to ban a group of
people from entering the United
States based on their background.
We should immediately be taken
aback by Trump’s actions when
considering where he stands on
basic humanitarian grounds and
also when thinking about the goals
of our campus community.

It is our job, as students, staff and

community members, to recognize
our goals of creating a diverse
and inclusive campus community
and actively combat forces that
work against them. Through the
language of Schlissel’s statement,
we see a clear indication of the
University’s desire to maintain the
international community that has
characterized our campus since
the 1800s, both on and beyond the
physical boundaries of our campus.
Banning any group of people from
entering the country, especially
refugees, will stunt efforts to
diversify our University campus,
making it harder to thrive in an
international setting and severely
marginalizing important voices in
our community.

We stand with all Iranian,

Iraqi, Libyan, Somali, Sudanese,
Syrian and Yemeni students,
refugees
and
undocumented

students
in
our
University

community who are affected
by this order. More broadly,
we stand with members of the
Muslim, Middle Eastern and North

African communities who may be
fearful of future ramifications
and
legislation.
Everyone

on campus has the right to
participate in higher education,
free from fear, regardless of
their racial, ethnic, national or
religious background.

Many
University

organizations
have
reached

out
to
provide
students

with resources and support
during
these
trying
times.

The following is a list of
resources available for further
information and support:

· Support for Deferred

Action for Childhood Arrivals

· Student and Exchange

Visitors Immigration System
and Student Privacy

· UM International Center
·

Counseling
and

Psychological Services

· Pre-Departure Planning Tips

from Global Michigan

· Student Legal Services
· Spectrum Center
· Sexual Assault Prevention and

Awareness Center