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.

