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skewed and outdated.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