4 — Saturday, April 29, 2017
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Earlier this semester, We Are 

Michigan organized a “Freeze 
Out” 
protest, 
where 
minority 

students and allies banded together 
to form a circle surrounding the 
Diag, carrying signs that read “We 
want real diversity,” and “I am 
that one Black girl in your class” 
along with other signs outlining 
the low minority representation 
on campus. Following an offensive 
“Hood Ratchet Thursday” party 
planned by the University’s chapter 
of Theta Xi, student leaders have 
responded by organizing forums 
to raise awareness and urging 
campus leadership to hold students 
accountable 
for 
irresponsible 

behavior and, more importantly, to 
stop treating these aggressions as 
isolated instances. 

As part of their general LSA 

requirements, every student must 
take at least three credits from a 
list of approved courses that fulfill a 
race and ethnicity requirement. To 
be approved, classes must discuss 
the meaning of race, ethnicity and 
racism, inequality resulting from 
racial and ethnic intolerance, and 
comparisons 
of 
discrimination 

based on race, ethnicity, religion, 
social class or gender. The goal 
of this requirement is to prepare 
students for working in multiethnic, 

multiracial environments in school 
and beyond. However, many of these 
classes are history courses that are 
highly theoretical in material. This 
is misleading because they imply 
history alone is more relevant than 
discussing the very tangible lasting 
effects and contemporary legacy 
of that history. Students should be 
required to take specific courses 
that openly discuss issues related to 
racism, classism and sexism as they 
exist and inform their interactions — 
in society generally and particularly 
on this campus. 

Instead, a required course about 

identity will help us nurture a more 
socially aware and responsible 
student body, and will serve as an 
unprecedented 
demonstration 

to 
students 
that 
University 

administration is committed to 
promoting and institutionalizing 
diversity education. This required 
course should replace the current 
race and ethnicity requirement 
and should become a part of every 
incoming 
freshman’s 
schedule. 

The course should discuss social 
identity in its multiple forms — 
spanning issues of racism, sexism, 
LGBTQ discrimination, classism 
and discussing the ways in which 
power and privilege play an 
unignorable role in sustaining 

these 
issues. 
Learning 
and 

reading 
material, 
assignments 

and discussions should challenge 
students to consider their own 
identities and the role they play 
in society. To nurture meaningful 
discussion and a safe space, the 
course should be dialogue-based, 
with facilitators who are trained 
by the University’s Program on 
Intergroup Relations and the Office 
of Student Conflict Resolution. 

We recognize that students 

in this course will interact and 
respond to material very differently, 
and some may feel uncomfortable. 
However, if the University is serious 
about creating a climate that is 
safe for all identities, it must urge 
students to confront the serious 
and often uncomfortable questions 
that 
our 
campus 
community 

cannot afford to overlook. Since the 
University has already instituted 
the race and ethnicity requirement, 
it only makes sense that it be 
refined and modernized to fulfill 
the goal for which it was created 
and adjust to the needs of shifting 
campus climate. Only upon having 
these serious conversations, both 
with themselves and with others, 
will students be prepared to enter a 
diverse world without threatening 
the safety of others in that space. 

By MICHAEL SUGERMAN

Columnist 2016

There have been many “not mys” 

this week. “Not my campus.” “Not 
my president.” “Not my country.” 
You’re all right — these things are 
not yours. They are ours. We should 
be concerned by how polarized 
things seem, and perhaps by how 
we may be complicit in amplifying 
that polarization. What we share 
and how we share it is increasingly 
contentious. This election and its 
aftermath illustrate as much.

This isn’t a call for unity. Unity is 

overrated. We won’t always agree 
on matters of politics. In fact, it’s 
important not to, because more 
often than not, what makes a policy 
“good” falls to normative judgment. 
Sharing and debating a wide swath of 
opinions is invaluable; such discourse 
broadens our collective worldview 
and creates the framework for 
compromise.

Now more than ever we need to (re)

learn how to coexist, and to approach 
conflict with civility and respect, not 
judgment and violence. That much is 
true regardless of the candidate for 
whom you voted. We are all human 
beings with basic shared desires — 
these include security and wellbeing, 
with applications from physical 
to financial to psychological. Our 
individual pursuit of what we need 
varies infinitely, but at its core we can 
find common ground.

If you didn’t vote for Trump, 

consider why such a vast portion 
of the country did. Know that their 
frustration and anger might have 
paralleled what you feel now if 
Trump had lost. Many Trump voters 
feel they are being mischaracterized 
as racist, bigoted xenophobes — 
and yes, clearly, some of them are 
this way — but why might scores of 
people have voted for him in spite of 
concerns about his language?

If you did vote for Trump, 

consider why such a vast portion of 
the United States didn’t. Understand 
why, overwhelmingly, people of 
color, Latinx, Muslims, coalitions 
of women, those who identify as 
LGBTQ+ and more are so upset. 
Understand why they feel unsafe.

Trump’s diction throughout his 

campaign, intentionally or not, has 
seemingly made these contingencies 
even more subject to discrimination, 
hate and violence than they were 
before. We’ve seen it in our Ann 
Arbor bubble, and the reality is, 
many who have been and are being 
marginalized feel that having voted 
for our president-elect constitutes 
tacit approval of these consequences.

Ultimately, then, now is not the 

time for either disillusionment or 
reticence. These will exacerbate 
political stratification and othering — 
which we cannot afford.

If you signed the “#notmycampus” 

petition, I think you’re misguided. 
You don’t get to call “microagression” 
when it suits your agenda, but decry 
an 
overly 
sensitive, 
“politically 

correct” country when your status 
quo is challenged.

If you’re so upset by the election’s 

outcome that you declare Trump 
is “not my president” and the U.S. 
is “not my country,” I think you 
may be misguided, too. People of 
all backgrounds talk about being 
disenfranchised by the system in 
one way or another, and the reality 
is that in democracy, we are all part 
of the system in some capacity, even 
when we feel outcast. Accepting 
this isn’t easy, especially when the 
institutional odds are historically 
stacked against you.

Instead of retreating to our corners, 

let’s talk to each other. It’ll be hard. 
Emotional. At times, triggering. But it 
will be necessary if we have any hope 
for some semblance of reconciliation. 
I think it’s going to require adopting 
certain 
practices 
that 
common 

opponents of “political correctness” 
hate: creating safe spaces, dispersing 
trigger warnings and acknowledging 
microaggressions when applicable.

Before you write these concepts 

off, consider that labels tend to be 
more divisive than the concepts 
they define. Some say trigger 
warnings and safe spaces are 
soft excuses for avoiding conflict. 
But, if I suggested that we warn 
students before a screening of 
“A Clockwork Orange” (which 
contains graphic rape scenes) that 
its content could prove traumatic 

for victims of sexual assault, I 
doubt I’d be rebuked. If I suggested 
implementing a judgment-free zone 
for people to ask difficult questions 
about race for which they may feel 
apprehensive, ignorant or just plain 
stupid, my conjecture is that few 
would object.

Don’t 
recuse 
yourself 
from 

dialogue 
that 
makes 
you 

uncomfortable. Be open to ideas 
you may disagree with, or even 
those which may offend you, so that 
we may find the common ground 
underlying opposing positions. On 
matters of policy, know that it’s OK 
if we don’t resolve our differences, 
but on matters of humanity, know 
that doing so is imperative.

We should all be outraged by the 

crime alerts of the last few days. So, 
regardless of your political affiliation, 
be an ally to the marginalized. This 
is a term with which I wasn’t all that 
familiar until recently, and I turned 
to my Facebook friends to help me 
define it. They said “allying oneself” 
to the marginalized entails listening 
to them; protesting alongside them 
even when our experiences are not 
shared; advocating fairness, equality 
and equity; intervening when we 
come into contact with family, 
friends, acquaintances and strangers 
alike who push unjust rhetoric or 
ideology at the expense of others.

It’s about asking people how you 

can be helpful, even if you don’t 
relate to what they’re going through. 
Really, being an “ally” is just having 
basic human decency. We are all 
capable of that.

The result of this election is set in 

stone, and we need to work together 
to 
move 
forward 
from 
here. 

Facebook posts and catchy Twitter 
hashtags aren’t enough. Subversions 
of our democratic systems, like 
petitioning the Electoral College 
to change the outcome, aren’t the 
answer either. Conversations with 
homogenous groups who share our 
opinions will only further divide us.

Do you want change? Let’s be 

good to each other, even when we 
disagree. Let’s do our homework. 
Read newspapers, get civically 
involved, vote and start listening. 
We can do this.

Reevaluating R&E requirement

It’s #notmycampus — it’s ours

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.

FROM THE DAILY

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

O

n Tuesday, the Black Student Union organized a “Being Black at the University of Michigan” 
campaign both on social media and University spaces, where Black students were encouraged to 
tweet and share their experiences of being Black at the University. The #BBUM campaign is just one 

of many student movements to point to declining minority enrollment and a lack of support from University 
administration as instrumental in creating a hostile racial climate. Since Michigan is devoted promoting and 
nurturing a diverse institution, the administration should demonstrate this commitment by requiring all 
freshman to take a course concerning contemporary identity issues. 

11/21/13

