M
y
parents
came
from China to the
United
States
in
1991, penniless but
filled with hope.
They
had
faith
that this new land
held
promises
of
a
brighter
future; they had
to,
otherwise
uprooting
themselves
from
everything
they
had ever known
would be all for
naught.
Coming
here was a gamble, and they
were all in.
The 1965 Immigration Act,
which eradicated immigration
quotas, led to a large influx
of
immigrants
from
Asian
countries.
For
my
parents
and many other Asians who
immigrated to the U.S. in the
late twentieth century, their
sacrifices
paid
off.
While
juggling a new baby (my older
sister, age one) and late-night
jobs
in
dishwashing
and
hosting, my father earned his
doctorate and my mother, her
master’s. They found
jobs,
worked hard, kept their heads
down and earned a spot in the
United States’ upper-middle
class. It’s the classic Asian
immigrant success story, and
it’s this trajectory that has
earned Asians the title of the
“model minority.”
The title may seem like a
compliment, but upon further
inspection, the implications
are troubling. Why are Asians
seen as the model minority?
Is it because they work hard
and frequently achieve the
American Dream? Or, is it
because we stay relatively quiet
about social issues and do not
often speak up about injustices
we face?
Although we may be a model
minority now, the last century
was
rife
with
anti-Asian
sentiment,
and
we
cannot let our present
relative fortune make
us think that we have
nothing in common
with
the
many
Muslims barred from
entering or reentering
the
United
States.
From 1917, with the
Asiatic Barred Zone
Act, to roughly 1943,
with the repeal of the
Chinese
Exclusion
Act, Asian Americans were the
targets of immigration laws.
We must not forget that, at one
point, 70 percent of immigrants
detained and interrogated on
Angel Island were Chinese.
The news would have you
think the United States is
black and white, but in truth,
Asians still face racism and
bias in the U.S., sometimes
blatantly
and
on
national
television, such as Chris Rock’s
exploitation of three Asian
children for a racist joke at
last year’s Academy Awards.
However, these offenses do
not receive as much media
attention or spark movements,
partly because there is a lack
of Asian Americans in politics
and media to bring awareness
to the issues, but also because
Asian
Americans
have
a
tendency to avoid “stirring the
pot” or being politically active.
There are a few prominent
public figures who give a voice
to Asian Americans in the
media — Constance Wu, who
has
no
problem
criticizing
Hollywood on its white-savior
casting of Matt Damon in “The
Great Wall,” comes to mind
— but they are still a minority
within
a
minority.
More
commonly,
Asian
Americans
are comfortable as the United
States’ model minority. Why risk
the role over a few grievances?
As a result, many Asian
Americans feel distant from the
issues that other immigrants
and minority groups face in
U.S. However, this mindset
has to change. As we enter
Donald
Trump’s
presidency,
which has already imposed a
travel ban on seven Muslim-
majority countries and signed
an executive order to begin
construction on a wall between
the U.S. and Mexico, it is more
important than ever for Asian
Americans to stand in solidarity
with
the
new
president’s
targeted groups.
Now is not the time to be
bystanders,
because
although
Trump’s
policies
may
not
targeting
Asian
Americans
specifically, they are targeting
an immigrant minority, and we
are not strangers to that. We can
no longer stay quiet and pretend
these issues do not affect us.
We can no longer turn the other
cheek under the guise of not
being “political.”
President Trump will not
reward us for being model
anything. If he is waging a
war on immigration, it would
be naive to believe that Asian
Americans are exempt from it.
After all, he has already shown
his dislike for Chinese and
Japanese businessmen during
his election campaign with a
grossly
racist
impersonation.
Asian Americans may not be
Trump’s primary target right
now, but that doesn’t mean we
can’t be, won’t be or weren’t.
We
must
remember
that,
besides those truly native to
America, we are all immigrants
here. And we must stand together.
I
t
is
obvious
that
the
Republican
Party
currently
maintains
a higher position of power
in the government because
of the election of a new
president.
However,
with
many
unqualified
people
being selected for important
positions, a real question is
posed: Is the Republican Party
being convinced to follow its
members
without
assessing
how successful the candidates
will be?
On Tuesday, Betsy DeVos
was confirmed as the secretary
of
education
despite
her
worrisome background with
education. As Sen. Elizabeth
Warren
(D–Mass.)
said
in
DeVos’ confirmation hearing
in
January,
“the
financial
futures of an entire generation
of young people depends on
(her) department getting (its
job) right.”
Supporters of DeVos mention
that they want control over
schools to go back to states and
communities. This could even
allow for religious control over
schools. This does not ensure
that everyone will receive the
same education, because it will
cause standards to vary and
be inconsistent, which will
further divide our country. It is
also essential that her followers
realize that not everyone is
a follower of her beliefs but
that they should still receive
equal and non-discriminatory
education. Now that she has
been confirmed, the quality
of our public education could
decrease, affecting at least 50.4
million public K-12 students
and ultimately moving our
society backward.
There is minimal evidence
for why Republicans voted yes
on DeVos for everyone’s best
interests, not just their own.
Only two voted against her.
Her visions do not have
the best interests of any of
us at heart. Proper education
should not be a privilege,
because with it, we are a better
society. It seems as though the
Republican Party does not care
about education — the priority
for its members seems to be
money. DeVos has personally
donated
about
$115,000
to
Republican
senators
prior
to her confirmation, and her
foundation contributed $1.45
million to the party and to
candidates who lobbied for a
Detroit Public Schools plan
that ultimately would cause
the poorly performing public
schools to close, but not the
bad charter schools. She has
been blamed for destroying
the
public
school
system
in
Michigan,
especially
in
Detroit. Our state’s education
ranking has fallen over the
years and is predicted to fall
further by 2030.
An
exchange
between
Warren and DeVos affirms
she has little to no idea about
how
financial
aid
works.
Since she is someone of higher
socioeconomic
status,
she
cannot fully understand how
money is a limiting factor for
people of lower socioeconomic
statuses in pursuing education.
It’s hard to forget that she
has not attended, worked in
or sent her children to public
schools. The way students will
be treated will be affected
because of her views. She
cannot identify with many of
us, and her actions will only
benefit the families who can
afford to send their children
to private school because her
policies will have little to no
effect on them.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)
also questioned her during her
confirmation hearing, asking,
“Do you think if you were not
a
multi-billionaire,
if
your
family has not made hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
of
contributions to the Republican
party, that you would be sitting
here
today?”
Her
rebuttal
mentioned that she worked
with low-income students, yet
she has not even glanced at
the under-funded schools in
Detroit. Her “donated” money
ultimately went into buying
herself a spot in President
Donald Trump’s Cabinet.
She claims that every student
should have access to high-
quality options for education,
but she would not agree to work
with Sanders to make public
colleges free.
Even for moral issues, she
could not explicitly say she
supports that every taxpayer-
funded K-12 school be required
to meet the requirements of the
Individuals with Disabilities
Care Act. Instead, she believes
it should be up to states, which
means she does not believe that
the existing law that protects
disabled students should be
enforced. Sen. Tim Kaine (D–
Va.) simply states why this is
problematic: “Some states might
be good to kids with disabilities
and other states not so good and,
what then, people could just
move around the country if they
don’t like how kids are being
treated?” She had the same
solution on schools reporting
discipline,
harassment
and
bullying: leave it up to the state.
If she does not want to enforce
a
safe
school
environment
for all children, how can the
Republicans who voted for her
identify with her and support
her choices?
Her actions hit even closer
to home for many college
students, namely because she
could not commit to preserving
Title IX guidance, passed to
prevent gender discrimination
and protect sexual violence
survivors
and
act
against
sexual assault by investigating
immediately,
which
Trump
wants to repeal. Her donations
include thousands of dollars to
the Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education, a group
that
has
fought
legislation
aimed
to
prevent
campus
sexual assault.
DeVos
threatens
schools
not only in an ideological
sense but also because of her
inexperience
and
financial
support of groups that are
working
against
creating
equality for all. Every student
should be able to access public
education
without
partisan
politics muddling its quality.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, February 10, 2017
Talking points of democracy
ROLAND DAVIDSON | COLUMN
L
ast month, after Rep.
John
Lewis
(D–Ga.),
a civil rights leader,
declared
that
he
considers
President
Donald
Trump
an
illegitimate
president,
Trump
responded
in
a
series
of
tweets:
“Congressman John
Lewis should spend
more time on fixing
and
helping
his
district, which is in
horrible shape and
falling
apart
(not
to……mention crime infested)
rather than falsely complaining
about
the
election
results.
All talk, talk, talk - no action
or results. Sad!” The liberal
response to Trump’s attack
was
to
juxtapose
Lewis’s
record of activism during the
60s
and
Trump’s
multiple
military deferments and lavish
upbringing.
There are a number of ways
to explain why liberals would
follow this line of argument.
An uncharitable reading is
that it makes them feel good
but is ultimately ineffective.
Democrats
get
to
remind
themselves that they’re the
heirs
to
civil-rights-era
activism and to that era’s
successes. This interpretation
also
fits
into
both
the
narratives that Trump is a
hypocrite and that, despite his
outsider status, Trump grew
up in the lap of luxury.
However, is this reading
meaningfully
rebutting
Trump’s
argument?
If
you
read his initial tweet, he’s
criticizing Lewis’s work as a
congressman, not as an activist.
The uncharitable reading is
not doing much to actively
dispel Trump’s narrative, and
it’s
primarily
consolidating
liberals’ position.
This reading is pretty easy
to criticize. There’s a sort
of
intellectual
hollowness
in talking past one another.
At
its
best,
democracy
is
a
high-minded
battle
of
ideas.
But
our
political
discussions
rarely
reflect this. Liberals
and
conservatives
are talking past one
another.
The exact same
thing happens with
our nation’s debate
on
abortion:
One
side is concerned
with the morality
of denying a potential person’s
existence, while the other cares
about placing an undue burden
on the mother. Embedded deep
within our ideals of political
engagement is the idea of a
Hegelian synthesis, wherein
each side debates one another
and
proposes
their
theses.
Ultimately, both sides come
out with a new understanding,
an intellectual synthesis, with
both sides being bettered. In
reality, debaters just keep going
back and forth endlessly.
But the United States is not
functioning anywhere close
to those vague democratic
ideals.
It’s
important
that
no democracy truly be at
that level. Realistically, it’s
impossible to expect every
American
to
substantively
understand every angle of an
issue and then substantively
evaluate the pros and cons of
each side. Once we’ve accepted
that, we can understand the
political value these sorts of
arguments have. Controlling
the way that a story is told
allows you to guide the ensuing
conversation and help people
on the fence or shift the timbre
of conversation.
This makes logical sense,
but it’s also been empirically
proven to be the case. A 1997
study showed participants two
news stories about a planned
Ku Klux Klan march. The first
framed the issue as one of
freedom of speech: Should the
KKK be allowed to march? The
second framed portrayed the
discussion as circling around
civic order: Would the KKK’s
march threaten people’s lives?
Predictably, when the march
went through the first frame,
people were more tolerant of
the KKK’s speeches by about
30 percentage points and more
supportive of the march by
about 20 points. The opposite
happened when people were
exposed to the public safety
frame. Interestingly, studies
have
shown
that
framing
effects
are
most
powerful
among better students and
more educated people, so it’s
not as though this strategy is a
way to shape the masses.
Even though it’s not the
most intellectually glamorous
rhetorical strategy, changing
frames has been shown to be
very effective. But there are
going to be people who are
resistant to these different
frames. Framing effects can
be effective for people without
strong views on a topic, but
don’t be surprised when these
arguments fail to move the
needle much.
Additionally,
a
key
moderating factor for a group’s
ability to control the frame
is not only about the relative
merit of the frame, but also
about
how
loud
they
are.
Trump is incredibly effective
at communicating his messages
to millions of people, which
may limit the power of these
framing
effects.
Thus,
to
effectively
combat
Trump’s
frames, liberals need to step
away
from
liberal
talking
points and think about moral
arguments in order to actually
address his arguments head on.
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
Roland Davidson can be reached at
mhenryd@umich.edu.
Betsy DeVos’ swindled party
ANURIMA KUMAR | OP-ED
We are all immigrants here
ASHLEY ZHANG | COLUMN
Ashley Zhang can be reached at
ashleyzh@umich.edu.
We don’t feel safe!
Come on!
We are all women!
Yes. . . But also
by Nia Lee
NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU
ASHLEY
ZHANG
ROLAND
DAVIDSON
Anurima Kumar is an LSA
freshman.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.