W

ith 
all 
that 
has 

happened in the past 
few weeks, the idea 

of American exceptionalism has 
seemed even more 
skewed and outdated. 
Both nationally and 
on campus, the new 
political climate has 
been tense and filled 
with 
uncertainty. 

President 
Donald 

Trump’s 
slogan 
of 

“Make 
America 

Great Again” implied 
a return to a better 
nation, 
which 
had 

seemingly been lost in past 
administrations. Yet, the first 
weeks of Trump’s presidency 
have thoroughly worked against 
what makes America exceptional.

At 
its 
core, 
“American 

exceptionalism” is the idea 
that the United States is the 
vanguard of liberty, democracy 
and opportunity — a nation 
unlike any before it, created 
on the basis of equality and 
liberty, 
and 
throughout 

history, a country dedicated 
to upholding and cultivating 
these essential values, both 
abroad and at home. American 
exceptionalism promotes the 
United States as a nation which 
is singular, unique and a leading 
example for other nations. 

My own belief in this definition 

of American exceptionalism is 
wary. The United States’ history 
of being a pillar of equality is 
both skewed and inaccurate. 
Our patriotism is not unlike any 
other democratic nation’s, and 
our true upholding of equality is 
lessened by historic racism and 
discrimination embedded in 
our institutions. 

However, 
recent 
political 

events have made me more 
cynical in viewing America’s 
exceptionalism. Trump’s Cabinet 
appointments, 
his 
executive 

order 
on 
immigration 
and 

the more recent and personal 
racial incidents on our campus 
have 
been 
disheartening, 
to 

say the least. Yes, parts of my 
disappointment hinge on my 
political leanings, but certain 
issues go beyond politics.

Trump’s executive order on 

immigration is a huge step away 
from American exceptionalism. 
If we are considered a country 
of liberty and equality, then we 
should be opening our doors to 

those who need help the most, not 
closing them. The actions Trump 
has taken, or rather has tried to 
take, are symbolic of a different 

kind 
of 
American 

exceptionalism: 
an 

exceptionalism 
that 

promotes equality and 
liberty, but only for the 
few, not the many. 

Furthermore, 
the 

ban goes against what 
I 
believe 
actually 

makes 
the 
United 

States exceptional: the 
people. 
The 
nature 

of Trump’s executive 

order sends a simple message 
to those who come from the 
seven countries affected by it: 
You are not welcome here. Yet, 
this rhetoric, whether enacted 
through law or not, degrades 
the diversity the United States 
has prided itself on. The United 
States has stood out among other 
nations because of its power to 
draw people from all over the 
world onto one land mass, living, 
working and creating. The rich 
diversity of this country is what 
makes it exceptional. Without 
immigrants, the story of American 
innovation, culture and progress 
would be incomplete. 

In addition to the executive 

order, Trump’s war on the press 
seems to be part of his redefining 
of America’s greatness. In a 
collection of tweets, Mr. Trump 
has called out The New York 
Times for fictional reporting, 
or, more accurately, reporting 
that doesn’t praise him. The 
president’s rhetoric toward the 
press again degrades the liberty 
and democracy associated with 
American exceptionalism. The 
press has been a sure check on 
the actions of those in power, 
and, if anything, true freedom 
is found in the truth-telling of 
our journalists. A press that 
depicts 
politics 
truthfully, 

regardless of whether it taints 
the image of the powerful 
elite, is a press that uses its 
First Amendment right to hold 
leaders accountable and give a 
voice to those who otherwise 
wouldn’t have one. Attacking 
the press is attacking one of 
the truest and most historic 
examples of American freedom. 

Yet, while Trump continues 

his 
unexceptional 
actions, 

his 
constituents 
are 
doing 

the 
opposite. 
American 

exceptionalism 
hinges 
on 

democracy and liberty, and while 
Trump may continuously stray 
from these virtues, Americans 
are working to uphold them. A 
Trump presidency may have 
created an upheaval of anger and 
fear, but it has simultaneously 
redefined 
what 
makes 
the 

United 
States 
exceptional. 

Exceptionalism isn’t in the hands 
of a single leader or political 
administration. Exceptionalism 
is in the hands of the people. 

In the past few months, a 

wave of solidarity has made its 
way through the United States 
in a reaction to Trump’s divisive 
nature. 
The 
record-breaking 

Women’s March was just the 
beginning of Americans coming 
together to stand up and speak 
out against injustices heightened 
by Trump’s presidency. Instead 
of idly sitting by, people of all 
backgrounds are taking a stand in 
whatever way they can. 

American 
exceptionalism 

isn’t found in the political 
leaders we have representing us, 
but in our own abilities to stand 
up and speak out against those 
leaders’ actions when we see 
fit. American exceptionalism 
is found in the vast diversity 
of our population and our 
ability to recognize and accept 
our 
differences. 
American 

exceptionalism is found in a 
press that refuses to sugarcoat 
the truth in an effort to please 
the 
powerful. 
American 

exceptionalism 
is 
found 
in 

people 
protesting 
executive 

orders outside airports, even if 
they aren’t affected. American 
exceptionalism 
is 
found 
in 

four judges working against an 
executive order, blocking what 
would be an injustice to many. 
American 
exceptionalism 
is 

found in a group of students 
standing outside a university 
president’s 
house 
in 
the 

middle of the night, calling for 
accountability and change.

This 
is 
American 

exceptionalism. It isn’t who 
we have in the highest seat of 
our government, but how 
we stand up against the 
injustices and divisiveness 
he may promote. That is 
exceptionality. 

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 14, 2017

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

A few words on exceptionalism

ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN

Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached 

at anuroy@umich.edu.

T

he 
sociology 
classes 

I’ve been taking this 
semester have taught me 

just how messed up our country 
is. I’ve been learning 
about class inequality 
more 
in-depth 
and 

how 
people 
of 
all 

races from lower-class 
backgrounds 
can’t 

achieve the American 
Dream. 
I 
realized 

this a while ago, but it 
pains me that others 
don’t feel the same way 
as me, especially in 
regards to education. 

What can we do to help give 

children in poorer schools a better 
chance of success? Why do we not 
do more to help the needy? Why 
do people have a “pull yourself 
up by your bootstraps” mentality 
when some people can’t afford 
boots in the first place?

Many people know that the 

system is rigged for many to 
succeed and make a comfortable 
living. For generations, people 
have been angry about where they 
stand and how their government 
has forgotten about them.

All these questions rattle 

around in my mind when I think 
that it’s a no-brainer that millions 
of people who are abandoned, 
pushed to the outskirts and not 
given help should at least be 
given better schooling in order 
to to have a more decent life. The 
people who live in poor areas 
of the country need assistance 
because we don’t all live on an 
equal playing field. And life isn’t 
a game — it can’t be replayed. 
It’s a fact that children acquire 
wealth from their parents’ hard 
work and privilege and career 
types, but what about the kids 
who aren’t so fortunate to have 
inheritances or two parents 
around or to have attended a 
well-funded school? 

For me, it’s important that 

people 
are 
knowledgeable 

about our education system 
— how teachers should be 

more 
valued 
and 

that 
every 
kid 

deserves a quality 
education 
— 
but 

right now that isn’t 
happening. Schools 
are dilapidated and 
closing in Detroit 
because of low test 
scores. Who is that 
helping? How will 
these kids get to 
school?

While these kids have their 

schools close and attend school 
in classes infested with mold, a 
school not far away in Bloomfield 
Hills has a fireplace and statues 
in a courtyard. The parents of 
students at that school have 
the means to help pay for these 
luxuries, making the playing field 
more uneven. The money is being 
used to help the school have nice 
classrooms, adequate textbooks 
and clean hallways before these 
little luxuries. It’s not necessarily 
a crime to have all this in a school, 
but it’s a stark contrast from 
other schools, where the water 
from fountains is undrinkable 
and bathrooms are falling apart. 
Yes, there are other factors we 
can take into account, such as 
parenting and the kid’s own work 
ethic, but can we really blame 
someone’s lack of success when 
they’re not put in an environment 
where they’re prepared to excel? 

To the people reading this, I 

might be barking up the wrong 
tree. But at the same time, there 
are many people out there who 
don’t have the same perspective 
as the one I have shared. And 
it’s not entirely their fault. 
They may have been exposed 
to entirely different opinions, 
taught a different way or could 

be oblivious to the complexity of 
inequality in our country. 

With that in mind, I’ve 

been trying to embrace the 
philosophy of loving instead 
of judging. I don’t think it’s 
right for me to judge someone 
right off the bat based on a 
comment or belief before having 
a conversation with them. It’s 
better to enter a conversation 
with an open mind, choosing to 
love and listening to understand, 
rather than to respond. 

Especially with how clear it 

is that our country is divided, 
we should strive for education 
and conversation instead of 
immediately passing judgment. 
It will be difficult — and 
sometimes impossible — to 
change someone’s mind or to get 
them to listen, but maybe giving 
them a chance will be beneficial 
to both sides.

It’s probably not best to 

discuss 
these 
issues 
over 

social media, because the best 
sentiments never seem to get 
across there, but whether on 
social media or in person, 
telling your side of the story 
is important. The injustices in 
our country can get our blood 
boiling. And it makes me even 
more infuriated when people 
aren’t upset, coming off as 
selfish or apathetic. Those who 
seem like they don’t care may 
be in fact be self-centered. But 
at the same time, there might 
be some who just don’t know or 
were misinformed. 

It’s better to love instead of 

judge. Progress is more likely 
attainable when we’re united 
and informed. Take a deep 
breath while your blood is 
boiling and try to give people 
the benefit of the doubt. 

Love, don’t judge

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

Chris Crowder can be reached at 

ccrowd@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

The U must step up under DeVos
F

ollowing fierce protests and fiery criticism, Betsy DeVos was 
confirmed as secretary of education on Feb. 7 in a historic tie-breaking 
vote by Vice President Mike Pence. DeVos, former chairwoman of 

the Michigan Republican Party and a billionaire businesswomen, has never 
attended public school, been an educator or directed any department of 
education. She is a strong supporter of school choice and student voucher 
programs, which threaten many important facets of our nation’s education, 
including the education of marginalized groups such as racial minorities, 
students of low socioeconomic status, students with disabilities and 
survivors of sexual assault. Given DeVos’s appointment as secretary of 
education, The Michigan Daily Editorial Board calls upon the University 
of Michigan to continue to support the best interests of students, even as 
efforts to protect students may wane at the federal level.

DeVos’s support of school choice 

has implications on the racial and 
socioeconomic 
compositions 
of 

primary and secondary schools 
and the quality of their education. 
Charter 
schools 
in 
Michigan, 

especially 
in 
Detroit, 
have 

historically 
performed 
poorly. 

While studies have shown charter 
schools — under close monitoring 
— can increase racial integration in 
segregated communities, DeVos’s 
lack of commitment to the oversight 
of charter schools will not likely 
secure optimistic outcomes. What’s 
more, it is troubling that DeVos is 
not taking a more critical stance 
on charter schools, given their 
lack of success in her home state 
of Michigan. This will ultimately 
have deleterious effects on student 
preparedness and access to higher 
education, and, by extension, to 
diversity on campus.

DeVos’s 
apparent 
lack 
of 

knowledge and commitment to 
protecting the Individuals with 
Disabilities 
Education 
Act 
is 

extremely concerning, especially 
because students with disabilities 
can be harmed by the voucher 
programs she supports. For example, 
Florida’s voucher program requires 
that students with disabilities who 
receive vouchers waive their rights 
normally afforded under IDEA. And 
while this issue could hypothetically 
be solved by strict regulation, 
DeVos’s adamant opposition to any 
uniform regulation on public school 

activities during her confirmation 
hearings makes it all but certain 
that necessary regulations to protect 
special education students will be 
absent from DeVos’s administration. 
Since K-12 education is integral 
to college access, the University 
should 
remain 
proactive 
in 

creating pathways to access post-
secondary education for students 
potentially 
marginalized 
by 

DeVos’s lack of oversight.

She seems to know very little 

about financial aid and student debt, 
as demonstrated in her uncertainty 
regarding how financial aid and 
Federal Pell Grants work. When 
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) 
questioned 
DeVos 
about 
how 

she plans on protecting students’ 
finances, 
DeVos’s 
response 

confirmed she was unaware of the 
laws in place to prevent monetary 
waste, fraud and abuse. Such 
ambivalence is especially concerning 
in light of the $25 million settlement 
President Donald Trump dealt out 
to students who were cheated when 
they enrolled in Trump University. 
The 
University 
should 
remain 

proactive in ensuring students’ 
resources 
are 
being 
expended 

properly while working toward 
tuition affordability.

Finally, DeVos has not shown 

a commitment to upholding her 
department’s 2011 Title IX guidance, 
which 
requires 
colleges 
and 

universities to play a role in fighting 
sexual assault on campus. DeVos 

has donated to the Foundation for 
Individual Rights in Education, 
an organization that supported 
a bill that would ban institutions 
from prosecuting and investigating 
reports 
of 
sexual 
misconduct 

without a survivor making a police 
report. While many universities’ 
handlings of sexual misconduct 
cases have been problematic, we 
believe that universities’ involvement 
in 
sexual 
misconduct 
cases 

independent of law enforcement 
officials must be maintained given a 
university’s unique role in a student’s 
life. Eliminating a student’s option 
of only reporting misconduct to a 
university restricts survivors’ choice 
of how they would like to handle the 
matter. We implore the University 
to continue providing all current 
methods of recourse to sexual assault 
survivors that are legally permissible, 
even if the federal government 
quashes current protective federal 
policies. It is no less the responsibility 
of the University to help survivors of 
sexual assault and mitigate gender 
discrimination on campus.

The University must continue 

its 
commitment 
to 
protecting 

victims of sexual assault, students 
with disabilities and marginalized 
groups. Betsy DeVos’s confirmation 
will have tangible consequences for 
all students, and it is necessary that 
the University’s students, faculty 
and staff fight back against policies 
that fail to provide a safe and quality 
education experience for everyone.

O

n Feb. 6, your newspaper 
ran an article called “City 
Council hears concerns 

from protest over Ann Arbor’s status 
as a sanctuary city” with the image 
of my hijab-clad face in focus. There 
are many reasons why this came as a 
surprise to me. However, after some 
thought, perhaps I should not have 
been surprised at all.

I am a graduate student from 

Bangladesh at the University of 
Michigan 
on 
a 
nonimmigrant 

student 
visa. 
I 
am 
neither 

undocumented, nor am I seeking 
immigration. 
I 
do 
believe 
in 

my 
fellow 
undocumented 
and 

immigrant community members’ 
rights to civil liberties and to this 
land that they have helped build on 
their backs.

Due to the many particularities 

of my identity that the photographer 
seemed to have brushed off or not 
taken the time to investigate, I 
could not be and was not present 
at this event representing the 
undocumented/immigrant 
community of Ann Arbor. I did 
not officially belong to any of the 
protest groups either. I was quietly 
standing at the back of the room 
as a concerned, temporary Ann 
Arbor resident taking notes on the 
proceedings. There were active 
protesters with meaningful signs 
at the front of the room. Ann Arbor 
resident Julie Quiroz gave an 
impassioned speech and made a 
substantial case for Ann Arbor to 

become a sanctuary city. When I 
saw my face on your Feb. 6 issue of 
The Michigan Daily, I wondered 
why my muted, demure face was 
deemed a better representation of 
the sanctuary city movement than 
the faces of all the colorful and 
vocal protesters.

I 
wondered 
what 
the 

photographer thought when they 
plastered my face to the article. Were 
they catering to patronizing white 
liberals? (“Look, this oppressed soul 
is who you are ‘saving’ by making 
Ann Arbor a sanctuary city?”) Were 
they trying to inspire hostile alt-
right rebuke? (“Look, this symbol 
of Islamic terrorism is who you are 
inviting into your homes.”)

My hijab-wearing identity is 

always a tool of political dissonance, 
never individual, never personal and 
never complex. My image in your 
article will never be interpreted as an 
image of an ardent ally, a participant 
like the rest of the audience with 
personal views and opinions on 
the issue at hand, but always as the 
dehumanized object that is being 
debated, fought over.

We, 
Muslim 
hijabi 
women, 

are made to lend our molded 
(reshaped to meet the Western 
audience’s rhetorical comfort) faces 
to movements, without regard to 
what our personal politics might be 
or where we might want to place 
ourselves in the spectrum of the 
movement. The whitewashed and 
unapologetically jingoistic image of 

the American-flag-wearing hijabi 
woman in Shepard Fairey’s “We 
the People” poster series is a recent 
example. The June 1985 National 
Geographic cover of the young 
Sharbat Gula, reduced to being called 
the “Afghan girl” with “haunting 
green eyes” is another. 

I am not making a case against any 

form of representation. I am making 
a case for nuanced, contextualized 
representation. 
I 
am 
inquiring 

the motivation behind each cycle 
of 
representation, 
the 
political 

functionalities and audiences each 
representation serves.

I could go on and on about the 

appropriation of the hijab in Western 
media. In an effort to not shift focus 
from an otherwise-important piece 
on the state of sanctuary cities, I 
will leave you with this request: As 
a media institution, ask yourselves 
what role you play in politicizing my 
face. Ask yourselves if your use of my 
face is further legitimizing dominant 
narratives about Muslim women, 
or if it’s challenging them. Ask 
yourselves if you are dehumanizing 
my face by stripping it out of a 
holistic context to make your larger, 
oversimplified political statements. 
When you wage your political wars 
on Muslim women’s bodies, ask 
yourselves if you have counted 
the casualties.

ANSHA ZAMAN | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Ansha Zaman is a Natural 

Resources and Environment 

graduate student.

ANU ROY-

CHAUDHURY

CHRIS 

CROWDER

