D

uring my senior year 
of 
high 
school, 
I 

went on an overnight 

Catholic 
retreat. 

The organizers of 
the retreat reached 
out to the attendees’ 
friends and families 
to 
collect 
letters 

about all sorts of 
things: 
what 
we 

meant to them, what 
their faith meant to 
them or even just 
offering 
general 

advice as we prepared 
to leave for college.

Watching 
the 

response around the country 
and on campus to President 
Trump’s divisive policies and 
rhetoric, a line from one of these 
letters stuck out in my mind:

“People often claim that hate 

is the opposite of love (I think 
they bought into that hate/love 
T-shirt or something). That’s 
not really true. The opposite of 
love is not hate, but rather fear, 
and from this fear, all negative 
and painful emotions flow.”

From 
the 
data 
alone, 

Trump’s 
signature 
policies 

thus far — the former travel 
ban 
and 
the 
border 
wall 

— 
seem 
indefensible. 
The 

administration defended the 
travel ban as being necessary 
for national security, but none 
of the 9/11 conspirators came 
from any of the seven countries 
targeted by the travel ban. 
Furthermore, since 9/11, there 
have been 10 deadly terrorist 
attacks on American soil — but 
none of the terrorists came 
from any of the seven countries 
affected by the ban. 

Yet when the media reported 

stories of individuals seemingly 
deserving of exceptions to 
the travel ban barred from 
entering the United States 
— long-time U.S. residents, 
individuals who risked their 
lives to help the U.S. military, 
college students and babies 
traveling to the United States 
for life-saving surgery — many 
still supported the policy by 
arguing that it was necessary 
to protect Americans from 
potential terrorists.

Facts and data may not 

be 
capable 
of 
explaining 

this reaction, but fear can. 
In Europe, massive flows of 
refugees — as many as 10,000 
per day and an estimated 
1 million total in 2015 — 
poured over the weak, under-
resourced southern borders 
of 
already 
financially 
and 

politically strained countries 
like 
Greece. 
This 
caused 

massive social and political 
shocks and damaged Europe’s 
tourism industry. Some of the 
refugees perpetrated deadly 
terrorist attacks.

However, 
there 
are 

obvious differences between 
the realities of the refugee 
situations in the European 

Union 
and 
United 
States, 

the starkest of which is the 
geographic distance between 

Greece and Syria, 
and 
the 
United 

States 
and 
Syria. 

Given 
that 
many 

refugees 
fled 

extremely desperate 
circumstances 
with a few precious 
belongings, it makes 
sense that refugees 
weren’t arriving on 
American shores in 
the same numbers 
they 
were 
on 

Greece’s shores.

Many 
migrants 
travel 

through Turkey and cross the 
Aegean Sea to get to Greece 
— a water crossing that is 
only about four miles at its 
narrowest point. Despite this 
relative proximity, more than 
3,000 
refugees 
have 
died 

attempting to reach European 
shores as of September 2016. 
Under similar conditions, the 
nearly 
6,000-mile 
journey 

from Syria to New York seems 
almost 
impossible 
under 

similar conditions.

In 
stark 
contrast, 
the 

United States admits a small 
number of refugees who pass 
the strictest vetting processes 
required of any immigrant 
group, and as far as all 
available data is concerned, 
are actually less likely to 
commit acts of deadly terror 
than Americans born in the 
United States. A whopping 84 
percent of jihadist terrorist 
were born in the United States. 
(Note: These numbers don’t 
include other major sources 
of domestic terrorism like 
right-wing terrorist groups, 
including white supremacists 
and 
neo-Nazi 
terrorist 

groups, and left-wing terrorist 
groups.)

None of this is to suggest that 

terrorism is not a real or credible 
threat — it is. But there is little 
reason to believe that this travel 
ban would save American lives. 
Additionally, in many respects, 
U.S. post-9/11 counterterrorism 
efforts have been successful. 
Further improvements should 
focus on strengthening the 
intelligence gathering efforts 
that have proven crucial to the 
fight against terrorism thus far.

But fear doesn’t engender 

evidence-based 
decisions. 

Fear promotes a try-anything-
and-everything 
approach. 

Fear 
prompts 
ordinarily 

rational people to project their 
concerns and anxieties on 
undeserving targets.

In this case, those targets are 

refugees. In other cases, those 
targets are Black and Hispanic 
men blamed for small upticks in 
violent crime rates, women and 
immigrants blamed for taking 
jobs that would ordinarily go 
to white American males.

Violent crime and economic 

stagnation 
are 
legitimate 

fears. The United States needs 
solutions 
to 
the 
problems 

of 
gun 
violence, 
widening 

income inequality and illegal 
immigration. But projecting 
these anxieties onto others 
and letting that animosity 
shape policy will not result 
in solutions to the very real 
challenges we face. In practice, 
letting fear — not evidence 
— drive policy may actually 
worsen our problems or create 
new ones. Even to those who 
accept harming members of a 
marginalized group as a cost 
of assuaging their fears should 
not accept outcomes that make 
the whole country worse off.

In 1947, the then-called U.S. 

Department of War released 
an anti-Nazi propaganda video 
titled “Don’t Be a Sucker.” The 
central character of the video 
was named Mike, an American 
everyday man who seemed to 
have everything going for him: 
He was young, healthy and 
owned a prosperous factory 
where free men and women 
from all over the world worked 
to produce products used all 
over the world.

“Mike’s 
got 
something, 

all right,” the narrator told 
viewers. “He’s got America. 
But there are guys who stay 
up nights, figuring out how to 
take that away from him.”

Who wanted to take America 

from poor Mike?

The 
video 
cuts 
to 
an 

angry white man addressing 
a 
crowded 
park, 
shouting, 

“We’ll never be able to call 
this country our own until it’s 
a country without … Negros, 
without 
alien 
foreigners, 

without 
Catholics, 
without 

freemasons.”

By attempting to protect our 

country and ourselves from 
outsiders, we risk strangling 
the things that make America 
truly great. We prevent others 
from bringing their new ideas, 
work ethic and diverse ways of 
looking at the world and the 
problems it faces— all essential 
ingredients to the innovation 
and enterprise that made our 
country the leader that it is.

Helping to preserve that 

beautiful version of America 
requires more than simply 
opposing 
Trump 
and 
his 

policies. If we really want to 
keep America great, we need 
to 
continuously 
challenge 

our own beliefs and address 
our own fears and their many 
manifestations. If we don’t, 
we leave ourselves vulnerable 
to those who want to use 
them against us in support of 
policies that will make us — 
and our country — worse off in 
the long run.

O

ver the past 20 years 
or so, it seemed like a 
new world order was 

emerging. Globalization took hold 
and we caught a glimpse of nation-
states disappearing and cultures 
intermingling. 
We 
seemingly 

saw 
ideological 
conflicts 

fade away and an increase 
of communications and free 
commerce. But was this nothing 
more than a tantalizing glimpse 
of what the world could be?

Now, more than ever, we are 

seeing a return to the strong 
nation-state and to nationalist 
ambitions. 
Politicians 
who 

advocate standing up for their 
country and making it “great 
again” have grown in power and 
influence, and not just in the 
United States.

According to President Trump, 

in order to make America great 
again, we must make national 
security a top priority. So what is 
national security? Traditionally, 
national 
security 
is 
centered 

around the idea of protecting the 
institutions of the nation-state. In 
the recent years of globalization, 
however, traditional security has 
been challenged by advocates 
who believe that security should 
be focused on the needs of the 
individual. National security is no 
longer limited to the protection of 
the nation itself, but now extends 
its concern to notions that are 
more intimate — the protection 
of 
human 
rights. 
This 
new 

extensive definition of national 
security that includes issues of 
human concern shifts attention 
away from the traditional state-
centered notions of security, 
characterized by state borders, 
to an approach centered around 
the people within.

As we return to the age of 

nationalist ambitions, we also 
return to the notions of traditional 
security. Yet the biggest security 
threat to face the nation, and the 
world, is not one that can be looked 
at in terms of traditional security. 
That threat is climate change and 
the depletion of vital resources.

According to Michael T. Klare, 

author of “The Race For What’s 
Left,” the world is facing an 
“unprecedented crisis of resource 
depletion.” 
Currently, 
all 
of 

Earth’s accessible areas are being 
exploited, demanding a search for 
new, and often environmentally 
dangerous, methods to extract 
resources. In a nationalistic world 
order, this could be extremely 
dangerous. 
As 
non-renewable 

resources are used up, those who 
advocate for traditional security 
would 
seek 
unconventional 

methods such as the use of extra 
heavy oil, transforming coal to 
liquids or extracting gas from 
shale 
formations, 
known 
as 

hydrofracking — processes that 
would lead to great environmental 
risks and human suffering.

Furthermore, 
because 

traditional security is focused on 
the state rather than the individual, 
it can be assumed that the 
centralized government has sole 
decision-making power, with no 
international regulation by which 
to abide. This is dangerous. Since 
resource scarcity and human-
induced climate change are global 
problems, they should be handled 
at an inter-governmental level, 
with notions of human security at 
the forefront.

While the United States might 

benefit economically in the short 
term by pursuing unconventional 
methods, as a citizen of the world, 
it is incumbent upon the United 
States to rise to the challenge to 
discover alternatives that limit 
the adverse impact of its policies 
on the world community at large. 
If every nation followed this 
approach, it would be possible to 
replenish scarce resources while 
limiting human-induced climate 
change. With respect to resource 
depletion, nations should not rush 
to extract the remaining vital 
resources, but rather engage in a 
race to adopt new materials and 
methods that would free the world 
from its dependence on finite vital 
resource supplies.

As students at the University 

of Michigan, it is critical that 
we embrace ideas that provide 
security for all 
 — whether that 

is investing in clean renewable 
energy, advocating for universal 
health care or fighting for equal 
access to quality education. 
After all, we are all just citizens 
of planet Earth.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 20, 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 global threat in an Old World order

CAROLYN AYAUB | OP-ED

Don’t let fear drive policy

VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN

Victoria Noble can be reached at 

vjnoble@umich.edu.

Carolyn Ayaub is an Editorial Board 

member.

VICTORIA

NOBLE

T

here is nothing better 
than hearing your close 
friend share an intense, 

silly or emotional story from 
their 
day-to-day 
life. 
You 

giggle over the details of how 
they slipped down the stairs in 
front of a cute boy, you cringe 
when they had a panic attack 
on their way to their first exam 
and you feel heartbroken when 
they found out their grandma 
was sick. Through the give 
and take, you are invited to 
share their experiences. This 
is a way we catch up and learn 
from the people in our lives. 
Stories create a snapshot of 
their 
individual 
experience 

and we are granted full access 
to their unique perspective.

I 
have 
recently 
become 

fascinated with stories from 
complete 
strangers. 
One 

platform 
that 
showcases 

storytellers is The Moth. They 
have live shows, competitions, 
Radio Hours and a podcast 
online. The Moth airs and 
presents true stories told by 
real people from all over the 
world. I most likely will never 
meet these people, or even 
see a picture of them, but will 
know something intimate that 
they decided to share with the 
world. I began listening to The 
Moth on long drives and found 
the stories so captivating that 
sometimes I would have to pull 
over to finish them.

Last week, I was finally 

able to attend a live event, a 
StorySLAM, here in Ann Arbor. 
StorySLAMs 
are 
themed, 

open-mic competitions where 
those who want to share a 
story put their name in a hat 
and 10 are chosen to present 
for five minutes. Assigned 
audience members judge each 
storyteller’s piece individually. 
Their rating of each story is 
charted throughout the show and 
the winner of the SLAM moves 
on to the GrandSLAM, a larger 
scale competition show where the 
StorySLAM winners compete.

The Ann Arbor Distilling 

Company was jam packed. I 
walked into a room full of lively 
individuals, who filled all the 
seats, leaving standing room 
only. While I was anxiously 
waiting in line for the bathroom 
and trying not to miss the first 
story, I met a woman who drove 
with a group of friends all the 
way from Cleveland to join in on 
this special experience. I was 
amazed and humbled by The 
Moth listeners’ commitment 
to traveling near and far to 
support the live storytellers. 

The theme of the night was 

“bouncing back.” The stories 
ranged 
from 
experiences 

of bad breakups, childhood 
bullies, 
moving 
out 
of 

hometowns and other general 
moments of life’s confusion. 
The atmosphere of the crowd 
changed 
with 
each 
story, 

from smiles and laughter to 
silence and sympathy. The 
community of listeners was 
fully engaged in each story, 
following the lead of each 
storyteller on their narrative 
journey.

As I listened, I realized 

that I could relate many of my 
own experiences to those that 
were being presented at the 
mic. I could not help but start 
thinking of an outline for my 
own story that would fit this 
particular theme. Any one of 
us could find something in 
our lives to share under this 
general theme. I was reminded 
that everyone is a member of 
the shared human experience. 
We live in a world with many 
categories and binaries that 
seek to divide us, but often we 
are more similar than we are 
willing to admit.

The 
Moth’s 
platform 

highlights these similarities 
through 
real 
stories 
that 

connect us all. I truly believe 
if we take the time to listen 
to strangers’ stories we could 
learn from people who have 
vast differences from us. Even 
if our version of “bouncing 
back” is different than someone 
else’s, together we can work 
to understand complex issues 
from all perspectives. 

If you want to join in on 

this human experience come 
to the next StorySLAM at Ann 
Arbor Distilling Company on 
Feb. 21 at 6:30 p.m. Have a 
time conflict? You can always 
listen to stories online through 
TheMoth.org or through your 
local radio station.

The power of storytelling

ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | OP-ED

Ellery Rosenzweig is an LSA 

sophomore.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Michigan Daily’s Opinion section is seeking additions to Survivors 

Speak, a series of first-person accounts of campus sexual assault 
and its corresponding personal, academic and legal implications. 

Submissions will be due by March 10 at 11:59PM. 
Visit http://bit.ly/2kIeoMq for more information.

Since resource 
scarcity and 

human-induced 

climate change are 

global problems, 
they should be 

handled at an inter-
governmental level.

— Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) at the climate rally in Ann Arbor 

on Saturday Feb. 18.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

We now have a director of the EPA 
that says that global warming isn’t 

real. His entire career has been 
dedicated to undermining the 

agency he was appointed to lead and 

opposing the laws he was asked to 

enforce. It’s scary... ”

