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.