F

or 
Christmas 
my 

sophomore year of college, 
my mom gave me “Just 

Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson. 
Since 
I 
had 
been 

aspiring to become a 
lawyer, she thought I 
might be inspired by 
the story of a lawyer 
who 
advocated 

for 
marginalized 

criminal defendants. 
She couldn’t have been 
more 
correct: 
Few 

books have the ability 
to 
transform 
my 

worldview as much 
as “Just Mercy” did. The work 
was compelling not just for its 
heart-wrenching stories about 
clients Stevenson represented, 
but also for the captivating and 
impassioned way that he made 
his case for justice, equality 
and mercy.

This 
combination 
was 

so 
compelling 
because, 
in 

my 
experience, 
these 
three 

ideals seem to be increasingly 
disentangled. 
The 
quest 
for 

justice and equality that I usually 
see, at this university and around 
the world, is a quest that reserves 
its compassion and mercy for 
only some. Often it alienates, 
ostracizes 
and 
condemns 

instead. This is found in “public-
shaming” culture, which reviles 
and castigates without asking 
questions or looking for context. 
We often decide based on a 
tweet or off-hand comment that 
someone is incurably prejudiced, 
evil and irredeemable. From our 
high horse we look down and 
judge. Stevenson, in contrast, 
argues 
for 
understanding 

and forgiveness, ideals that I 
have found to be difficult to 
implement in practice, but strive 
for nonetheless.

I 
embraced 
these 
ideas 

surrounding justice, particularly 
racial 
justice, 
upon 
reading 

“Just Mercy,” but over the 
years as I have had to deal 
with 
academic, 
professional 

and familial challenges, they 
have slowly faded to the back 
of my mind. They came to the 
forefront, however, when I found 
myself confronted with the sort 
of marginalized people whom 
Stevenson championed over the 
course of my legal internships 
and 
volunteering 
positions. 

These ideas also came back to 
me during heated debates on 
racial inequality with family 
and friends, particularly in light 
of the 2016 elections. Upon the 
rise of racial hatred, so many 
who advocated for racial justice 
and equality responded with 
equal amounts of hatred and 
anger. This might have been an 
acceptable response to a neo-
Nazi, but not so much to a Trump 
voter for whom the economy was 
a primary concern.

I 
was 
frustrated 
and 

disheartened that so many in 
our country either embraced a 
candidate who stirred up racial 
hatred and had close ties to 
white nationalists, or had simply 
chosen to look the other way. 

I was also worried about the 
response from the other side that 
chose to stigmatize and shame 
people instead of working to 

better 
understand 

them. 
Stevenson’s 

message came back to 
me, and I wondered 
what could have been 
done if bigotry had 
been met by mercy 
instead of venom.

Recently, 
it 

couldn’t have been 
more 
fitting 
that 

Stevenson spoke on 
campus, 
delivering 

the 25th annual Wallenberg 
Lecture. He was awarded the 
Wallenberg Medal for upholding 
the values of Raoul Wallenberg, 
a University alum who risked 
his life by (and was likely killed 
for) saving the lives of thousands 
of 
Hungarian 
Jews 
during 

the Holocaust. Stevenson and 
Raoul both embody the words 
inscribed on the medal, “One 
person can make a difference.”

During his lecture, Stevenson 

spoke at great length of his 
experiences representing clients 
who 
may 
have 
committed 

reprehensible crimes, but were 
still greatly mistreated by the 
criminal justice system. These 
stories 
still 
tugged 
on 
my 

heartstrings even years after 
having first read them in “Just 
Mercy.” Stevenson emphasized 
how the criminal justice system 
treats Blacks, Latinos, children, 
people of low income and people 
with mental disabilities unfairly.

Speaking of his experiences 

representing 
these 
guilty 

yet 
mistreated 
defendants, 

Stevenson 
said 
people 
“are 

more than the worst thing they 
have ever done.” When he says 
this he means that we should 
understand people are flawed 
and we should treat them with 
kindness and mercy. We should 
be willing to show forgiveness 
to people and not let them 
be defined by their mistakes, 
however severe. Stevenson also 
made clear that this empathy 
should not just be reserved for 
the marginalized. We use mercy 
when we deal with convicted 
felons as well as bigots.

During the lecture, Stevenson 

also advocated for the “power 
of proximity” as a way to gain 
understanding of the struggles 
of others, and thus be better able 
to help individuals instead of 
problem-solving from a distance. 
He also believes that this power 
of proximity can help to address 
bigotry. In fact, he believes we 
need to free people of their 
bigotry, and this can only happen 
when we have uncomfortable 
conversations. He believes these 
uncomfortable 
conversations 

about racism and inequality can 
help us address our country’s 
legacy of racism, and when we 
acknowledge and accept these 
truths we will be set free.

A powerful example of how 

effective these uncomfortable 
conversations can actually be is 
the case of Derek Black, the son 

of prominent white supremacists 
and the godson of David Duke, 
a former Ku Klux Klan grand 
wizard. Black embraced the 
white-nationalist ideology he 
was born into and surrounded 
by, and was widely considered 
to be the heir to the movement. 
This all began to change after 
he started studying at New 
College of Florida, a liberal and 
somewhat 
diverse 
university. 

After a few semesters of trying 
to hide his familial background, 
news spread around campus that 
a white supremacist was present. 
Although many students chose 
to shun him, some of Black’s 
acquaintances reached out to 
him and chose to include him. 
Black credits the conversations 
he had with these students as 
being one of the factors that 
helped him realize the damage 
that he had done. As a result, 
he has renounced the white 
nationalist movement.

Stevenson 
suggested 
during 

his lecture that children who 
are indoctrinated with white 
supremacy by their parents are 
subject to a certain form of child 
abuse. Certainly, people must 
take responsibility for their 
decisions and actions, but we 
must recognize that some people 
are taught racial superiority and 
hatred from a young age, which 
hinders their ability to recognize 
the liberating truth of equality. 
Luckily for Black, he went to 
school with peers who used mercy 
and compassion to set him free.

Stevenson encouraged us not 

to consider bigots and racists 
lost causes, and his manner of 
discussing issues of inequality 
and injustice seemed to show 
he had experience attempting 
to convert these people. His 
lecture 
was 
beautiful 
and 

persuasive, 
articulating 
his 

messages of equality, justice and 
mercy as convincingly as he did 
in his book. I appreciated that 
he conveyed these messages 
in a way that didn’t seek to 
punish those who didn’t already 
understand, but instead sought 
to create understanding. He 
avoided using overly academic 
terms to speak of issues of 
inequality and racism. He spoke 
with conviction and passion but 
avoided letting his emotions 
turn into anger or hatred. I hope 
the rest of us hoping to spread 
equality and fight injustice take a 
page out of his book, and learn to 
embrace mercy.

I’m 
not 
suggesting 
that 

anybody 
put 
themselves 
in 

danger or go out and befriend 
their local Klansman. Rather, 
I’m suggesting that we look 
for the humanity in everyone 
and try to have these difficult 
conversations 
when 
possible. 

Although meeting bigotry with 
mercy can be hard, it often helps 
me when I remember something 
I was taught in high school, 
“Hurt people hurt people and 
open hearts open hearts.”

I

n March, I moved to the 
United States and started 
my new position as a 

researcher at the University of 
Michigan. I accepted this offer 
when I still had the certain 
belief that Hillary Clinton 
would be elected president. 
Yet, I believed wrong — like 
so many others. Though I 
highly respect the vote of 
the Electoral College, on the 
morning of Nov. 9, I woke up 
overwhelmingly shocked and, 
in fact, scared by the election 
of Donald Trump as the next 
president of the United States. 
When I checked my phone, a 
friend of mine had texted me: 
“Now are you already looking 
forward to the purge?”

In her concession speech, 

Hillary 
Clinton 
said, 
“We 

owe (Donald Trump) an open 
mind and a chance to lead.” 
This might or might not be 
true, 
and 
in 
my 
opinion, 

when respecting democratic 
standards, there is no other 
option but to give him that 
chance. Particularly, as a non-
American I feel I am not in 
the position to say or demand 
otherwise. Also, I think I am 
not in the position to criticize 
or judge Trump’s ideas and 
actions concerning internal 
U.S. politics. But there are two 
things in particular that give 
me collywobbles when I think 
about the new president of the 
United States.

On Jan. 20, a person who 

literally said, “The concept of 
global warming was created 
by and for the Chinese in order 
to make U.S. manufacturing 
non-competitive” took office. 
During the presidential race, 
Trump 
promised 
anything 

but fighting climate change or 
progress toward clean energy 
in the United States. This has 
been underpinned by his first 
actions as president, and if 
he continues to implement 
what he promised, it will not 
only concern U.S. citizens — 
especially those who would 
become victims of fracking — 

but have a severe impact on the 
whole world.

This is a deeply frightening 

reality. I have heard people 
say things like “We just have 
to survive those four years 
and everything will be back 
to normal again.” But the 
sad truth is that a lot can be 
damaged in just four years. 
Already now, it will require 
a tremendous, collaborative 
effort to keep the planet from 
rising two degrees Celsius 
above 
the 
“pre-industrial” 

global temperature. But if 
the United States really quit 
the Paris climate agreement, 
that goal could be buried for 
good. This would be a disaster 
of global scale and the mere 
thought that it could actually 
happen is scaring me.

Second, in a foreign policy 

briefing — i.e., not in a speech 
before 
his 
supporters 
— 

Donald 
Trump 
reportedly 

asked, “If we have (nuclear 
weapons), why can’t we use 
them?” Now, if this does not 
worry you, I do not know 
what would. When looking 
at his well-documented lack 
of 
knowledge 
regarding 

foreign affairs and how thin-
skinned 
he 
can 
be 
when 

confronting criticism, I find 
it not exaggerated that before 
Election Day, Barack Obama 
said: “In the last two days, (his 
campaign team) had so little 
confidence in his self-control, 
they said, ‘We’re just going to 
take away your Twitter.’ Now, 
if somebody can’t handle a 
Twitter account, they can’t 

handle the nuclear codes.”

To 
be 
fair, 
the 
more 

experienced people that were 
chosen for Trump’s cabinet 
give me hope that they will 
have a moderating influence, 
especially in terms of foreign 
policy. 
But 
nonetheless, 

Donald 
Trump 
carrying 

around the launch codes for 
the United States’s nuclear 
weapons is a serious matter 
that concerns the whole world.

For some people in Europe, 

it now seems pretty convenient 
to 
blame 
the 
“stupid 

Americans.” But it is not that 
easy. And it is not about the 
United States, and not about 
Trump alone. On the one hand, 
as Michael Moore put it: “THE 
MAJORITY 
of 
our 
fellow 

Americans preferred Hillary 
Clinton over Donald Trump. 
Period. Fact.” This disproves the 
“stupid Americans” argument 
and is a sign of hope for everyone 
disapproving of Donald Trump’s 
views. On the other hand, the 
“movement” that helped Trump 
become president is happening 
in Europe as well. (Anyone 
heard of the Alternative für 
Deutschland party in Germany?) 
Hence, it is not an exclusively 
American phenomenon.

What I ultimately learned 

from the rise of Donald Trump 
is that voting alone is not 
enough anymore. Voting does 
not require you to create your 
own ideas, you just decide for 
or against the ideas of others. 
It is now more important than 
ever to actively participate 
in the political process and 
commit oneself to leaving a 
better world and a healthy 
planet behind. Therefore, just 
like Trump has an agenda for 
his first 100 days in office, I 
have an agenda for my first 
100 days in Michigan. And one 
of my first to-dos is to contact 
the Democratic Party in Ann 
Arbor and ask what I can do to 
help them.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
 
 
4 — Thursday, March 16, 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

A European’s views on Trump

ANONYMOUS | OP-ED

Look for the humanity in everyone

MARY KATE WINN | COLUMN

Mary Kate Winn can be reached at 

winnm@umich.edu.

The writer’s name has been 

withheld for personal security reasons.

MARY KATE 

WINN

O

ne of the first things 
you 
learn 
in 
film 

school is editor Walter 

Murch’s theory on the “ideal 
cut.” When deciding exactly 
where to make a cut, he says 
emotion, or the feeling in the 
scene, accounts for 51 percent 
of the decision. All of the other 
categories combined — story, 
rhythm, 
continuity, 
etc. 
— 

account for less than half of the 
decision-making process.

Last year, I decided to 

make a cut that very much 
went against the continuity, 
rhythm and story of my life up 
to that point. I was in the Ross 
School of Business, working 
an amazing job as student 
manager 
for 
the 
Michigan 

football team and was in the 
Sport Business Association and 
Big Ten Network Student U. I 
was well on my way to a career 
in sport business.

Yet, after much deliberation, 

I decided to leave the business 
school and go study film in LSA. 
The reasons were simple: I hate 
talking about money, and I love 
talking about movies. Now, 
after almost a full year in my 
new major, I’m making another 
cut. Again, I’m disregarding 
the continuity and the story in 
favor of what I’m feeling. I’m 
running for president of CSG 
because of that overwhelming 
51 percent. Because it kills 
me to know that at my school, 
the University of Michigan, 
there are students who have 
to face racial prejudice on a 
daily basis. At the University, 
students have to wait multiple 
weeks to get an appointment to 
talk about their mental health. 
At the University, a student 
can go through an entire 
semester 
without 
learning 

the name of one single person 
in their class. I created the 
Movement because I want to 
go to a university that lives up 
to its name, and because I see 
a potential for this school that 
I don’t think anyone else does.

What we stand for is quite 

literally 
“movement.” 
Our 

platform is divided into four 
main 
“pillars” 
highlighting 

aspects of the University we 

think need to move forward. 
Our first pillar is student-
body unity. We recognize that 
these are uncertain times in 
our country, and as students, 
we must be a united front 
to respond when we feel the 
need to do so. This means 
creating more public forums 
where students can share and 
discuss ideas, disseminating 
more 
information 
to 
keep 

our students up to date on 
important 
national 
events 

and conducting school-wide 
surveys 
to 
gauge 
student 

sentiment on these matters.

Next is education reform. 

There is evidence out there to 
suggest many college grads 
in the United States are not 
ready 
for 
the 
workforce. 

According to a 2015 study 
featured in Money, employers 
gave recent college graduates 
low grades in all 17 career-
readiness outcomes surveyed. 
Although this is a national 
issue, it’s our duty to address 
it here, on our campus. One 
thing that we can do is re-focus 
on the social aspect of the 
classroom and give students a 
voice in their own education. 
Our 
“Annual 
Education 

Forum” is one initiative we 
have 
where 
students 
will 

get up in front of faculty and 
voice their suggestions in an 
auditorium setting. By making 
the professors listen to us 
for a change, it will serve as 
a symbol of the University 
putting the students first and 
will give them the voice they so 
badly need.

Another huge issue on this 

campus is diversity. Over the 
last decade, though enrollment 
of 
some 
minority 
groups 

on 
campus 
has 
increased, 

enrollment of Black and Native 
Americans 
has 
decreased 

significantly, and more and 
more students are upset with 
an apathetic campus culture. 
We aim to change that through 
multiple ideas like our “Send 
the 
Elevator” 
initiative, 

where students from lower 
socioeconomic 
backgrounds 

mentor 
younger 
kids 
from 

similarly 
disadvantaged 

backgrounds to help navigate 
the path to higher education. 
Hopefully, 
this 
mentorship 

could 
help 
highlight 

opportunities that students in 
poorer communities might not 
see as available to them, and 
attract students from more 
diverse backgrounds to the 
University. Moreover, we wish 
to create paid positions within 
the University for people who 
engage in diversity labor. These 
people will help our school 
become a more welcoming 
and understanding place, and 
without compensation, they 
don’t have the time to commit 
to do this.

Our fourth and final pillar 

is mental health. We feel that 
in addition to continuing to 
expand CAPS, we must work 
together to combat the source 
of mental health issues on 
campus. One initiative we have 
in place to do just that is our 
Four-Years Campaign — a 
University-sponsored mission 
to help students thrive in the 
four years that they have here 
on campus. For many students, 
it’s the first time on their own 
and managing everything can 
become 
overwhelming. 
For 

others struggling, the stresses 
of college life may manifest 
certain problems which were 
previously 
manageable. 

This program will serve as a 
guide, through mentorship, 
workshops and conferences, 
to help students find the 
work-life balance that is right 
for them.

These are just some of our 

ideas under these four pillars 
that we are ready to fight for. 
We plan on listening to you, the 
students, and incorporating 
any major concerns you may 
have. For the next week we 
plan on having “office hours” 
at 
Movement 
Headquarters 

on 1304 Geddes Ave. for all 
following weekdays before 
the election on March 22. All 
students feel free to stop by 
anytime between 8 p.m. and 
10 p.m. to talk to us about 
your ideas.

Making moves

EVAN ROSEN | OP-ED

Evan Rosen is an LSA junior.

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.

It is now more 
important than 
ever to actively 
participate in the 
political process.

