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.