O
ver the last week, public
criticism (via the news
and social media) has
been aimed at Students4Justice,
an organization that has been
fighting for racial justice on
campus since September 2016.
This criticism stemmed from
an op-ed originally published
in The Michigan Review, which
was then picked up by The
College Fix and the Daily Mail.
The writers of these articles
claimed that S4J’s demand for
an activist center where students
of color could do social justice
work
was
segregationist,
a
complete
mischaracterization
of S4J’s demand and a cynical
deployment of an ahistorical
definition of segregation. This
lead to online harassment of
S4J in the form of misinformed
critiques, racial slurs and threats.
Rooted in gross misconceptions,
such
concern-trolling
directs
our attention away from the real
question at hand: What will stop
the consistent racist attacks and
hostility toward people of color in
our community?
One starting point is better
contextualization
of
the
environment in which the demand
emerged.
While
the
articles
mentioned above de-emphasized
incidents
of
racism
against
students of color, we want to
clarify that racist violence has
been a persistent presence on
campus. The most recent rash of
racist incidents began on Sept.
26, 2016, when white supremacist
fliers with anti-Black messaging
were posted on campus. Over
the next five months, a series
of attacks was directed toward
students of color. More racist
and anti-LGBTQ+ fliers were
posted, racist slurs were directed
at Black prospective students
on a student group chat, a man
defiled a Muslim prayer rug
in a reflection room and racist
emails threatening Black and
Jewish students were sent out to
University listservs.
These incidents were only
the most recent examples of
overt racist attacks on a campus
where 65 percent of incoming
students is white, and classes
take place in a building named
after former University president
and outspoken eugenicist C.C.
Little. More recent articles about
the S4J demands published in
the Washington Post and The
Detroit News offer more details
about the racist incidents at the
University of Michigan, Michigan
State University and Wayne State
University, further contextualizing
how S4J’s demands arose.
A second important context is
historical, since the demands made
by S4J build on decades worth of
organizing to end institutionalized
and interpersonal racism at the
University. Since the late 1960s,
student movements such as the
Black Action Movement 1, 2 and
3, the United Coalition Against
Racism, Being Black at Michigan
which
spawned
the
hashtag
#BBUM and the United Coalition
for Racial Justice have advanced
demands for a more inclusive
campus. Many of these movements
have called for the University to
create multicultural spaces that
could foster racial solidarity. S4J’s
demands are in the spirit of this
tradition and struggle.
Characterizing
S4J’s
call
for an organizing space as a
return to “segregation” elides
this local context and instead
misappropriates
a
historical
phenomenon for contemporary
political means. Spaces that center
around students of color are not
the same as a “no-whites-allowed”
space as the author of the article
published in The College Fix stated
or the “non-whites-only space” the
author of The Daily Mail article
erroneously claimed. Segregation
was
a
legally
sanctioned,
institutionalized
system
historically enforced by violently
policing Black, Brown, Asian and
Indigenous people in the United
States. It is not “segregation” for
marginalized students to ask for
a space in which they can build
solidarity and participate in anti-
racist organizing.
Instead, this claim was used
to
harass
student-organizers,
harassment that included anti-
Black slurs, disparaging comments
about the intelligence of students
of color and calls for a return to
segregation
in
the
comments
sections of The Michigan Daily,
The College Fix and the Daily Mail
articles. The proliferation of racist
social media comments, in the
hours after The College Fix and the
Daily Mail articles were published,
illustrates how mischaracterizing
S4J’s demands contributed to an
already toxic climate in which
people felt, and continue to feel,
comfortable
advancing
violent
and racist threats. The University
administration
continues
to
respond
to
these
threats
inadequately, and as a result,
students have expressed fears that
their concerns will only be taken
seriously after students of color are
physically injured. At the heart of
S4J’s demands was a call for the
University to take concrete action
against the widespread racism on
campus. Now, more than ever, this
call to action should be recognized.
These
racist
attacks
and
social media comments further
demonstrate the need for a
dedicated activist space where
students of color can organize
for racial justice on campus.
S4J is one of the few groups at
the University that is proposing
concrete, actionable steps to end
white supremacy and racism.
The University has put forth the
“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”
plan, an extensive conceptual
strategy for resolving these issues,
but it has done so without offering
material strategies to ensure the
plan’s successful implementation.
S4J’s list of demands precisely
and powerfully proposes answers
to the necessary question: What
material structures and resources
will allow the work of “Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion” and the
dismantling of white supremacy
to be accomplished? Creating an
activist center where students
of color can build solidarity and
engage in social justice organizing
is an important step in working
toward that goal. Those who value
racial justice and equity should
(re)consider the importance of
S4J’s demands.
Though
the
University
highlights a long list of past
responses
and
actions
it
has taken to combat racist
and
discriminatory
policies
and incidents, it continues
to
ignore
many
current
concerns. When speaking on
the underlying problem of
affordable housing for students
of lower socioeconomic status,
for example, the University
points to lower rental rates in
Ypsilanti instead of attempting
to confront the high cost of
living in Ann Arbor. This is
especially disheartening when
considering The New York
Times’
The
Upshot
report
on the University’s lack of
socioeconomic
diversity.
Thus,
while
we
commend
the University for showing
more thought about the issues
marginalized
groups
face
on
campus,
that
response
depended too heavily on past
initiatives,
avoiding
issues
clearly communicated to the
administration by students.
As a result, the University’s
response veers from concrete
goal-setting and instead relies
on plans lacking in specificity.
Furthermore, one of S4J’s
main requests was for a “space
solely dedicated to community
organizing and social justice
work specifically for people
of color,” and the University
responded
by
saying
that
the Connector in the West
Quad Residence Hall is a
“currently identifiable cross-
cultural (space) on campus.”
This
response
exemplifies
a vague solution to a hyper-
specific request made by S4J.
Ambiguous answers like these
are scattered throughout the
University’s
response
and
do not address the specific
concerns S4J outlined.
But
even
when
comprehensively outlining the
work that has already been
done to appease prior demands
from S4J and other student
organizations, the University
fails to adequately expand
upon how its work can be built
upon to continually improve
diversity
and
inclusion
on
campus. S4J reiterates one
#BBUM demand from 2013
calling for a Race and Ethnicity
Requirement that “should be
required for all students at
the University … and should
be more selective.” Nearly four
years later, only LSA students
are required to take a course
focused on race and ethnicity.
Nonetheless, the University
response
to
this
demand
consists of referencing “Change
it Up,” a program started in
the fall of 2014, and involved
little clarity for the future of
the requirement. Goals with
timelines and concrete ways
of achieving them are needed
to change the campus climate
and take on issues of racism
and discrimination. Instead
of proposing programs and
classes
that
students
can
partake
in,
the
University
should focus on implementing
programs that encompass the
entire University community.
It was commendable that the
University
noted
the
new
building
renaming
policy
and a roundtable to discuss
renaming
the
C.C.
Little
Building; however, more could
be done to bridge the gap
between administrators and
other University members.
Furthermore,
there
is
a
notable lack of compassion in the
University’s response. Instead
of
providing
the
initiatives
of the past and avoiding the
issues at hand, the University
should have addressed what S4J
asked for first and foremost: “to
acknowledge (their) humanity.”
In
the
entire
document
released by the University, we
were hard-pressed to find an
instance when the University
recognized, on a basic level,
how members of S4J, along with
many other students, felt after
these racist incidents. Though
they address their concerns, the
nature of the responses seemed
removed from the empathy
necessary for these students
to feel their voices were heard.
Instead of using vague language
and taking a defensive tone,
the University should employ
a more empathetic tone for its
marginalized students who face
unique challenges every day.
Not
only
is
it
the
responsibility of the University
to respond to the fears and
concerns of its students, but
it is also their duty to address
students with empathy and
recognize the student body’s
humanity
and
feelings.
Additionally, as these bias
incidents have shown, previous
actions — that the University
spent most of their response
relaying — have not been
enough. The University must
recognize this and instead of
simply digging into the past,
think into the future and take
concrete, actionable steps to
change our campus climate.
W
e live in a dark,
confusing
and
turbulent
time.
Many of my friends and I
frequently
struggle
to
maintain
hope
that
this
country
can figure itself out
with
a
president
who won’t distance
himself from white
supremacists,
with
a
climate
change
denier as the head of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and with a man who
described slaves as immigrants
leading
the
Department
of
Housing and Urban Development.
But on Tuesday, March 7,
while listening to the remarks of
the Wallenberg Medal winner,
Bryan Stevenson, a civil rights
lawyer and activist, I felt a bit
more hopeful. Stevenson actually
described hopelessness as the
enemy of justice. We have no choice
beside remaining hopeful, beside
believing that change can happen.
If we cannot find ways to change
surrounding circumstances, why
are we here?
I want to think about Stevenson’s
ideas in the context of our campus,
and try to imagine the possible
outcomes if we collectively decided
to take the steps he described. How
might we imagine the ways acting
out Stevenson’s positions would
alter the campus experience, both
inside and outside the classroom?
Stevenson began his lecture
by discussing the need to get
“proximate” to people and stories
that are not familiar to us. He
articulated that we must work
directly with the poor, neglected,
abused and incarcerated among
us. And we ought to do this not
because we, the more privileged
members of society, have answers
to bestow upon the marginalized;
instead, we ought to approach
these people with an open mind
and an open heart, ready to learn
from them.
Immediately, this aspect of
Stevenson’s talk reminded me of
a kind of community service. I
think one way to imagine how this
idea might impact the University
of Michigan would be if students
were required to engage with
the larger Ann Arbor
community
in
some
collaborative
effort.
As students entering a
novel situation, we could
not adopt a position of
superiority. We would be
learning from and with
people we would never
otherwise encounter.
Imagine if this sort
of community service
became a pillar of the
educational experience on this
campus. It would force us to
consider our standing in the world,
to understand our privilege as
college students, to work across
difference with people in this
community.
Another vital point Stevenson
hit on was the idea that we, as
Americans, need to increase the
shame index in the United States.
By this, Stevenson meant that we
must willingly confront our past —
Stevenson’s organization, the Equal
Justice Initiative, is working on an
ongoing project to post markers at
every lynching site in the country.
Stevenson pointed out that we are
living in a post-genocidal state;
this country was “founded” and
cultivated
through
that
cruel,
massive genocide. In order to move
forward, we must look back.
Here, we can imagine the
impact of the University fully
reckoning with its past — instead
of a slogan like “forever valiant”
(which appears across campus on
advertisements for the University’s
bicentennial), which denies the
fact, for example, that University
President James Angell made
integral contributions to the 1882
Chinese Exclusion Act, or the fact
that there is currently a significant
swath of students who feel silenced
and ignored on this campus. We
are not always valiant. Nobody
is. That is a ludicrous idea to even
propose, nevertheless to identify
with. It is not only meaningless;
the act of willed ignorance, of not
confronting a prejudiced past and
a prejudiced present, is an act of
extremely destructive violence.
As Stevenson also noted, we
must change the narratives that
keep us from getting proximate,
that keep us from engaging with
people across difference. But the
University, in fact, loves to promote
certain narratives that have this
precise effect: How are we, the
students, meant to believe the
administration is actually working
to change itself and change this
campus culture if it creates slogans
like “forever valiant” to describe
our school? That slogan promotes
stasis, it promotes ignorance and
it promotes a sense that we here
at the University are — and have
always been — egalitarian.
At one point in his lecture,
Stevenson asked why we as a
society have collectively agreed
to silence, to jail and to kill the
most broken among us. And I
think this relates integrally to an
unwillingness to confront our past.
The mere fact that people in our
society today can be made broken
is a sign that our present moment
maintains antecedents within the
very outwardly and publicly evil
past of slavery and segregation.
Consequently, we silence them to
keep them in their place, to assure
they cannot remind a critical mass
about the past from which we have
all emerged.
Stevenson
remarked
that
throughout his 30-year career
defending people on death row,
he has been made to feel “a little
bit broken as well.” But, crucially,
he noted that it is in a state of
brokenness that we can recognize
the power of what it means to be
human. By confronting our broken
past and working collaboratively
with people made broken by our
present,
we
will
intrinsically
become broken, ourselves.
And it is only once we do this,
once we accept that collectively, we
are and always have been broken,
only then can we legitimately begin
to heal and to move forward.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, March 13, 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
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Recognize we are “broken”
ISAIAH ZEAVIN-MOSS | COLUMN
Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be reached
at izeavinm@umich.edu.
Media trolling obscures racist climate
COLLECTIVE AGAINST WHITE SUPREMACY | OP-ED
ISAIAH
ZEAVIN-MOSS
The Collective Against White
Supremacy is an Ann Arbor
organization.
FROM THE DAILY
Bias incidents require empathy
A
s bias incidents continue to occur across campus, student organizations
are pressing the University to reevaluate its responses to such incidents.
In the wake of racist fliers that were posted in September 2016, racist
and anti-Semitic emails sent out to engineering and computer science students
and the defilement of a prayer rug in February, a University of Michigan student
organization, Students4Justice, drafted a petition, organized multiple sit-ins
and put forward a list of demands addressing the administration’s reactions
to the racist incidents. Shortly thereafter, University administrators issued a
formal response to each of the demands listed that included, for the most part,
descriptions of procedures and programs already in place at the University.
While The Michigan Daily Editorial Board appreciates the University’s prompt
and specific response, we call on the University to issue more forward-thinking
and empathetic responses that establish more concrete goals to combat many
of the issues S4J outlined.
FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRANNIE AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU
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.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com