4

Thursday, May 11, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

O

n April 18, the Los Angeles 
Police Department adopted 
new rules that require police 

officers to try to defuse situations before 
firing a weapon. Regardless of how 
disturbing it is that police departments 
were previously not operating under 
these guidelines, one would expect this 
to mitigate police brutality. With this 
new rule and growing backlash toward 
law enforcement agencies, police are 
surely on their way toward reformation 
and improvement, right? While this is 
a step in the right direction, it does not 
address what is inherently incorrect 
about police: its principles.

In every institution, especially 

government institutions, principles 
and values are areas of fierce debate. 
In fact, the core principle of the size of 
government is a contributing factor 
toward the divide in contemporary 
U.S. politics. Some argue that with 
bigger government, one sacrifices 
freedom. Alternatively, others cite 
that with smaller government, one 
compromises safety. This continuum 
that measures security and freedom is 
often debated among those discussing 
surveillance, national security and 
other partisan issues. However, the 
continuum that is more pressing to the 
morality of U.S. law enforcement is that 
of safety and justice. That is to suggest 
that many times, justice is sacrificed in 
the name of safety. Specifically, modern 
law enforcement prioritizes safety over 
justice, and this prioritization punishes 
lower-income 
African 
Americans 

for the unsafe conditions in which 
they often live. Alternatively, a focus 
on justice could spur reformations 

resulting in equity among races.

Safety and justice are principles that 

collide with each other, but cannot exist 
without the other. To put it in concrete 
terms, justice refers to the equal and 
fair treatment of an individual under 
the law. Alternatively, safety is the law’s 
protection of an individual from any 
danger or threat to their life. There 
is often a sacrifice made to prioritize 
one over the other. Obviously, safety 
could not truly exist without a level of 
justice, and vice versa. For instance, 
a country fully prioritizing justice of 
all people would allow every Muslim 
immigrant into its country despite 
potential terrorist threats. Here, the 
Muslim immigrant’s justice is valued 
higher than the complete safety of 
residents. Alternatively, a country fully 
prioritizing safety would not permit 
any Muslim immigrants into the 
country despite the millions of innocent 
Muslims who are not terrorists. Here, 
the immigrant’s justice is sacrificed for 
the safety of the resident.

The 
trend 
of 
police 
generally 

prioritizing safety over justice is an 
unsurprising one. The United States has 
a retributive justice system — meaning 
it punishes crime — and is naturally 
focused on safety. Many will argue 
safety is always of paramount concern, 
and if all people’s safety is valued 
equally, the system is flawless. This is 
problematic because a prioritization 
of safety is inherently a punitive focus. 
That is to say a police force that looks 
to safety as its guiding principle will 
always punish those that exist in 
unsafe conditions. Social conditions 
such as poverty, low employment rates 

and lower educational attainment 
produce unsafe communities, and 
these conditions are frequently found 
in African-American-dominated and 
lower-income communities. This is 
to suggest that safety guides police to 
disproportionately target Blacks and 
the poor. Alternatively, a priority on 
justice is reformative. By focusing on 
justice, the social conditions that put 
safety at risk can become more salient 
and addressable. Instead of punishing 
Blackness, justice looks to improve the 
environment of Blacks in America.

This is exemplified through modern 

developments in predictive policing. 
The 
Marshall 
Project 
examined 

HunchLab, a crime-predicting program 
that “surveys past crimes, but also 
digs into dozens of other factors like 
population density; census data; the 
locations of bars, churches, schools, 
and transportation hubs; schedules for 
home games — even moon phases.” 
HunchLab predicts where crime is 
likely to be, then sends police to patrol 
that area more heavily. Craig Atkinson’s 
documentary “Do Not Resist” also 
examines a predictive policing program, 
LACER. LACER goes as far as to predict 
whether or not a person will be a 
criminal based off of historical actions, 
age, sex, race and other characteristics. 
This is exemplary of law enforcement’s 
emphasis on safety as a principle. Police 
departments send more officers to 
confront areas and individuals more 
likely to be unsafe. Alternatively, a 
philosophy of justice may lead police 
departments to send more beneficial 
resources toward the areas and 
individuals. Safety will punish those 

NISA KHAN

EDITOR IN CHIEF

SARAH KHAN

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

DAYTON HARE

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Justice is more important than safety

in these high-risk situations; whereas 
justice will address the conditions that 
make it high risk. That is to reinforce 
that justice can be more reformative, 
and ultimately generate larger change 
than safety can.

This being said, the responsibility 

does not all lie on law enforcement. 
It is imperative that citizens start to 
bear the responsibility as well. In his 
book, “Between the World and Me,” 
Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, “I called 
politicians and questioned them. I 
was told that the citizens were more 
likely to ask for police support than to 
complain about brutality… According 

to this theory ‘safety’ was a higher 
value than justice, perhaps the highest 
value.” Here, it’s made clear that even 
citizens value safety over justice, that 
“the destruction of the black body is 
incidental to the preservation of order.” 
If any changes are going to be made 
in law enforcement, it is essential that 
there be a reformation within ourselves 
and at the University of Michigan. Our 
values must change. If justice is to be 
upheld by the police, we must start to 
prioritize it as well.

—Brennan Pope can be 

reached at popeb@umich.edu. 

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Ibrahim Ijaz
Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler
Anna Polumbo-Levy

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

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.

BRENNAN POPE | COLUMN

LENA DREVES | COLUMN

Fully known

E

aster morning stands out in 
my mind from all the collected 
memories of my childhood. 

My parents would take my five siblings 
and me to church. In a sense of quiet 
reverie, we would listen to the grief of 
Jesus’s rejection by mankind, and how 
his ultimate love overcame it all when 
He rose from the dead. As I sat in that 
hard pew, fully embracing the love I felt 
from the story of Jesus’s resurrection, I 
dedicated my heart to always being full of 
love and acceptance like Him.

This dedication in my heart has 

been the reason I am able to overcome 
a destructive belief that LGBTQ-
identifying individuals are somehow 
“sinners” — from certain Christian 
perspectives — and the reason I have 
been able to accept myself as an individual 
attracted to the same sex. Ironic, isn’t 
it? That faith and love can overcome 
religion? I can continue in this dedication 
of love only because I have first received 
love for who I was. I accept myself and 
others because I have been accepted by 
this love. This is my Christianity. Some 
call it Christianity with a little “c”, some 
call it spirituality and some call me 
religious. However, for me, it is Love. It is 
what I want to receive and what I want to 
give away.

I didn’t fully understand what love 

meant until I felt hate, and I didn’t 
fully understand acceptance until I felt 
rejection. I knew I was gay since I was 17 
years old. It took me four years to accept 
this part of who I am. Though my religion 
told me I was sinning to accept my identity, 
it ironically supported me and helped 
me accept myself. This contradiction 
changed the way I thought about religion 
and Christianity specifically. The same 
heart that surrendered fully to this God 
I’ve come to know was the heart that 
knew it was falling in love with a girl. The 
same heart felt His love and acceptance.

The word “intersectionality” was used 

throughout the winter semester in my 
Women’s Studies class. I believe I didn’t 
fully understand the wisdom of the word 

‘intersectional’ until recently. The day my 
mom told me, over the phone, she would 
not be attending my wedding, I felt I could 
identify — if only a little — with minority 
individuals battling the majority. It was 
only after that week that I understood 
intersectionality. An individual cannot 
be “partially” accepted. A Black woman 
cannot be accepted as a woman without 
being fully accepted for being Black. An 
LGBTQAI-identifying individual cannot 
be accepted as a white person without 
being accepted for their sexuality. Who 
we are is not divisible. All the books I 
read and the movies I ever watched about 
minority groups experiencing rejection 
seemed to float through my mind that 
week: the civil rights movement, women 
suffrage, the entire LGBTQ community 
— all brought to mind an understanding of 
the rejection of minorities simply because 
of one factor that was “not acceptable” 
about them, according to society. Some 
are the wrong color, some are the wrong 
gender and some love the wrong sex.

If I went to get a tattoo today, I would 

tattoo the words “fully known” from 1 
Corinthian 13:12. It states: “For now, we 
see only a reflection as in a mirror; then 
we shall see face to face. Now I know in 
part; then I shall know fully, even as I 
am fully known”. I find it incredible 
that God fully knows us, yet also 
chooses to fully love us. Love chooses 
to see beyond external characteristics, 
to not be afraid of individuals who are 
different, and to embrace the uncertain. 
Love does not fear. Without fear, I am 
free to be who I know myself to be. 
Because of love, and because of God, 
I am able to allow myself to be fully 
known without the fear of rejection. 
The love may come from those around 
us — or may not for now. However, by 
choosing to stand in the open, and live 
according to who I am, I believe it will 
give others the courage to do the same.

—Lena Dreves can be reached 

at ldreves@umich.edu.

