5
OPINION
Thursday, May 25, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
T
he night of November 9,
2016, Van Jones turned
to the CNN cameras in
the studio and remarked, “This
[election] was a whitelash against
a changing country.” After staring
at the screen, I too was taken aback
by the result. My perspective on
the state of our country had been
shattered, and I knew I wasn’t the
only one. After the next few days,
I remember hearing and reading
about the abuse against Muslims,
African-Americans,
Asians,
women, and so many people.
Among all of this (continued)
chaos, I would still come back to my
apartment and look in the mirror,
and see a white male staring back.
It reminded me that I have never
been approached on the sidewalk
and had a racial slur thrown at me,
nor have I been sexually assaulted.
The lack of these acts, without one
doubt, is due mostly because I am
a white male. I am at a significant
advantage. Nevertheless, when
reading, listening and discussing
the
racial
and
ethnic
issues
stemming from the election, I have
been asking myself, “Is a white man
allowed to have a valid opinion on
racial or gender relations?”
There is no doubt in my mind
that I am privileged. How do
I know? I rarely think about
my race or my gender, and it is
only in certain contexts where
I am forced to reckon with my
position. In my introspection,
I realize there are two types
of white men on the “privilege
spectrum:” those who have no
regard for their privilege, and
those who often apologize for
or demean themselves because
of their privilege. I realize that
the personal white shaming,
especially on our own college
campuses, is rather prevalent
and overblown. Although there
is no doubt that the white man
is the most privileged gender
and race in western history,
I have struggled to recognize
what is appropriate to say as a
white man on our campus. To
gain approval from my peers
who are minorities, do I not
speak about the things sexist and
racial oppression I observe? Do
I downplay my “whiteness” and
“masculinity?” If I say something
not in line with the identity
politics today, am I a sexist or
racist?
As
stated
previously,
I
understand I am privileged, and
I am reminded when I work with
refugees and hear news about
the oppression of women and
minorities. Nonetheless, I feel
that because of my lack of personal
experience
with
racism
and
sexism as a victim, my opinions
from observation are viewed as
unjustified. Whenever I voice an
opinion about race relations in
class, there seems to be a massive
asterisk saying, “Here is a white
male.” For example, I recently
participated in a class for my
race and ethnicity requirement.
I appreciated that my discussion
section was diverse and included
many
unique
perspectives;
however,
whenever
I
spoke
about race relations, there was
this “asterisk.” My peers and my
GSI told me that I “really didn’t
understand,” and in turn, I was
seemingly ignored by my GSI
when I raised my hand. For me,
this was somewhat concerning. I
had “checked” my privilege, and I
wasn’t about to downplay for my
“whiteness” or “maleness” to gain
support from my class. While I am
a white male, I have tried to listen
to minorities, but can I voice my
perspective on what I’ve learned
from their experiences?
When
I
read
about
the
frustrations
of
many
people
with
“political
correctness
culture” on college campuses, I
think we are encroaching on a
dangerous balance. Our college
generation
is
more
inclusive
than any generation previously,
and many people from white
backgrounds
understand
their
privilege and work to help race
relations. Nevertheless, as John
McWhorter, an African-American
contributor to CNN, wrote, white
people in PC culture are expected
to “endlessly apologize,” and “they
feel damned if they do, damned if
they don’t.” As a white man, I am
unsure if having immense “white
guilt” and being quiet about race
relations is constituted as being
moral. For myself, I believe it
is important to have education
and historical awareness of the
oppression of many minorities
faced and continue to endure
in this country. However, I am
not sure if removing all people,
regardless of skin tone or gender,
helps continue the discussion.
People
from
all
different
backgrounds, regardless of gender
or race should never stop fighting
the
racism
that
still
exists.
Nevertheless, if we want to be
a wholly inclusive society, that
means we need to listen to people
from all different races, genders,
and religions. The “asterisk” will
always exist for me, but I hope
that the intentions to improve race
and gender relations of a white
male are perceived with more
value than the color of his skin or
the gender to which he belongs.
How can we as white men listen
more to minorities but not shame
ourselves for our identity? How do
we voice our opinions?
—David Kamper can be reached
at dgkamper@umich.edu.
My asterisk
Assessing Jeff Sessions’ drug policy
A
nn Arbor is a city defined by
its university, football, food
and great culture. Locals
and students will quickly praise
and boast these features; however,
a huge part of Ann Arbor less likely
to headline brochures has been its
progressive stance and cultural
acceptance of marijuana. In fact,
just this past April, Ann Arbor
hosted its 46th annual Hash Bash, a
clear celebration of marijuana.
Additionally, the city was at the
forefront of medical marijuana
legalization, making an initiative in
2004, four years prior to the state of
Michigan as a whole in 2008. The
city has been progressive in its drug
policy, and now more than ever it is
critical that the city continues to be.
On May 12, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions issued a memo that
instructs federal prosecutors to
pursue the harshest sentences
on
drug-related
crimes.
This
effectively
works
to
reverse
Obama-era
policies
looking
to
mitigate punishments for low-
level,
nonviolent
drug
crimes.
Instead of prosecutors avoiding
charging defendants for offenses
that trigger mandatory minimum
sentences, prosecutors will now
have to seek the strongest charges
possible for the crime. This will
inevitably
increase
mandatory
minimum
sentencing
and
add
nonviolent
offenders
to
our
already
overcrowded
prisons.
Mandatory minimums require that
specific offenses have inflexible
prison terms. This is infamously
problematic because it not only
requires drug offenders to serve
needlessly long sentences, but also
more severely punishes drugs that
traditionally target the lower-class.
This is exemplified through the
disparity between crack cocaine
and powder cocaine: it requires
eighteen times as much powder
cocaine as crack cocaine to receive
the same mandatory minimum
term. This is only the beginning
of stronger stances against crime
from this administration. Sessions
is undoing Obama’s progress on
drug policy by reverting to laws
set in place by Congress years ago.
This is a memo aimed to rejuvenate
the War on Drugs — a war slowed
significantly by Obama’s policies.
This being said, now is not the
time to rejuvenate the War on
Drugs. Crime rates are near an all-
time low, and even recent increases
in violent crimes in cities like
Chicago are not solved through
tougher drug policies. However, the
U.S. prison population remains the
largest in the world, and 52 percent
of federally-sentenced offenders
were drug-related in 2012. This
doesn’t even touch on the many who
are not incarcerated but harassed
and even arrested by police over
drug possession, such as the man
raided and arrested over a gram
and a half of marijuana in Richland
County, S.C., as documented in the
film “Do Not Resist.”
The War on Drugs was and will
continue to be an ineffective way
to combat the drug problem in our
country. It needlessly increased
the incarcerated population while
not taking any aims to rehabilitate
users or remedy the poverty
that
births
drug
trafficking.
Additionally, there is plenty of
research published that shows that
it has disproportionately affected
minorities in America. One in
three Black men ages 20 to 29
are incarcerated, and mandatory
minimums on drug possession and
trafficking will not help improve
those numbers.
If you don’t believe the statistics
that prove it, the fact that Ann
Arbor residents and students at the
prestigious University of Michigan
can participate in a Hash Bash
— glorifying the consumption of
marijuana — without consequence,
while Black South Carolinians
are raided by police teams over
marijuana proves there is a level of
privilege in the matter.
Now that our Attorney General
is reinforcing antiquated federal
laws on drug punishment, it is
important that cities and states
pass initiatives to make more
sensible drug policies. Supporting
organizations such as the Drug
Policy Alliance is critical to those
initiatives. And when the state
of Michigan proposes marijuana
legalization in 2018, I urge those
who can to vote in favor. It is only
a step to more comprehensive
drug policy reform but a huge one
nonetheless.
Residents of Ann Arbor have
benefited from lenient marijuana
laws and have had the privilege of
celebrating a Hash Bash festival
free from penalty while much of
the nation cannot. It is the duty of
those of us with the freedom from
draconian drug policy to support
progress for those without that
privilege.
— Brennan Pope can be reached
at popeb@umich.edu.
BRENNAN POPE| COLUMN
DAVID KAMPER| COLUMN
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.
I have struggled to
recognize what is
appropriate to say
as a white man on
campus