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