5
OPINION

Thursday, June 8, 2017

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

T

here are approximately 
7.5 
billion 
people 
in 

the world at this very 

moment, and each of us are 
distinctly different. That means 
there are 7.5 billion different 
fingerprints, or chromosomal 
sets — billions of bodies with 
unique 
faces, 
minds 
and 

movements. 
That 
reflects 

billions of connections, ways to 
communicate — billions of ways 
to live, feel and love.

Billions of moments and 

memories 
that 
make 
up 

identities 
and 
experiences. 

That also means there are 
billions of ways to hurt and 
cause pain. Billions of ways 
to divide, hate and fear. There 
are billions of ways to detach 
and 
ultimately 
billions 
of 

ways we can separate from 
each other.

What do we see when we 

look at one another? Is it just 
physical? Like skin color, hair 
texture and body type? Or 
the clothing we wear? Maybe 
it is more than that? Do we 
ever look beyond the surface 
and discover the languages 
and dialects we use? Where 
we come from? How we got 
here? Do we see the beauty 
of 
the 
individual? 
Do 
we 

acknowledge 
our 
various 

intellects? Experiences? Can 
we embrace our differences? 
Or 
will 
we 
continue 
to 

weaponize them, ultimately 
militarizing our very bodies, 
violating and exploiting not 
only our own character, but 
our environment as well. In a 
more general sense, what can 
we possibly gain from tearing 
each other apart?

I pondered these questions 

a few days after I reflected 
upon the tragic incidents which 
occurred in Manchester last 
week. My thought process was 
the following: First, it was 
accepting that the victims of 
this merciless killing were 22 
innocent young people, not 
much younger nor older than 
myself, some of which were 
attending their first concert 
by themselves. Next, it was 
coming to the realization that 
a current pop culture icon like 
Ariana Grande, whom millions 
have grown up watching on 
Nickelodeon and idolize, would 
be targeted and attacked.

Typically, 
it 
is 
easy 
to 

become so far removed from 

acts 
of 
terror. 
Treacherous 

occurrences happen thousands 
of miles away, across oceans, 
involving 
people 
we 
have 

never seen nor known. We 
feel pity, sadness, uncertainty 
— and then as quickly as we 
were shaken by the tragedy, 
we move on, distracted by the 
normalcy of our own lives, 
forgetting about the ruin those 
affected now find themselves 
in. Manchester cannot be one 
of those instances. So I wonder, 
what happens now? Fear? 
Mayhem? Hate? I think we can 
look to history to validate each 
of these conclusions. 

It is no secret that as acts 

of terrorism rapidly infect the 
globe, xenophobia follows in 

its wake. Xenophobia is defined 
as, 
“intense 
or 
irrational 

dislike or fear of people from 
other countries or cultures.” 
Following the rise of the jihadist 
group Islamic State in Iraq and 
Syria in 2014, xenophobia most 
often appears in the form of, “a 
dislike of, or prejudice against 
Islam or Muslims, especially 
as a political force,” otherwise 
known as Islamophobia. We 
see this in the spike of hate 
crimes and anti-Muslim groups 
following 9/11, and even in our 
political 
culture. 
As 
recent 

as January, when President 
Trump’s 
executive 
order 

attempted to ban immigrants 
and 
refugees 
from 
several 

Muslim-majority 
countries 

from entering the United States. 
It is interesting to note that 
even the President of the United 
States ran a campaign centered 
on rhetoric instilling the fear 
of our differences and now has 
taken executive action to keep 
us divided and isolated from 
others. The latest FBI’s annual 
Hate Crime Statistics report, 
shows that anti-Muslim hate 
crimes have risen 67 percent, 
totaling 257 reported instances 

in 2015. According to the Pew 
Research Center analysis, that 
is the highest number since the 
al-Queda attacks on New York 
City and elsewhere in 2001. In 
recent years, we have seen this 
statistical trend demonstrated 
at the University as various 
Islamophobic incidents have 
occurred. For example, the 
anti-Muslim chalking on the 
Diag, or even more recently, 
the defiling of a prayer rug in 
the 
Shapiro 
Undergraduate 

Library — both of which gained 
national 
attention, 
spurring 

the involvement of the FBI. 
Last 
year, 
The 
Michigan 

Daily even published a piece 
entitled, “Muslim students say 
Islamophobia is frequent and 
underreported 
on 
campus.” 

We act cruelly and violently 
against each other, even on our 
own campus.

Just a few days ago, in 

Portland, Oregon, two men 
were fatally stabbed by a 
man who they confronted for 
yelling racist comments at two 
teenage girls on a commuter 
train. One of the girls was 
Black 
and 
the 
other 
was 

Muslim and wearing a hijab. 
These men, now identified as 
Ricky John Best and Taliesin 
Myrddin 
Namkai-Meche, 

have been labeled as heroes 
for their courageous actions. 
Given 
current 
undertones 

of today’s society, some may 
be lead to believe that it is 
acceptable to victimize people 
for their differences; however, 
these two men obviously did 
not share the same sentiment. 
They 
acted 
powerfully 
by 

countering this, thus standing 
up 
for 
their 
convictions 

and ultimately showing the 
world how things should be. 
Unfortunately, these men had 
to sacrifice their lives in order 
to do it.

There are approximately 7.5 

billion people in the world at 
this very moment, and each 
of us are distinctly different. 
However, our differences lie 
in how we view them. With 
all of this being said, I’ll ask 
again.

What do we see when we look 

at one another?

What do you see?

—Stephanie Mullings can be 

reached at srmulli@umich.edu.

Our eyes
Promoting racial equity through sustainability
W 

hile 
there 
are 

improvements to be 
made with race-based 

issues on campus, there is no 
question that the University is 
committed to making strides 
toward racial equity. This is 
evident through the Diversity, 
Equity and Inclusion (DEI) 
initiative implemented in 2015. 
The DEI is at the forefront of 
the University’s agenda — and 
personally I think for good 
reason. This being said, the DEI 
should not be the only way we 
address racial inequality at the 
University.

While it may not be obvious, 

the importance of addressing 
racial inequality is especially 
true 
when 
evaluating 
the 

sustainability 
initiatives 
put 

forth by the University. Clearly, 
environmentalism 
is 
critical 

to the health of the planet — 
which is already important. 
However, 
environmentalism’s 

pertinence to racial inequality 
makes it even more significant. 
And, 
considering 
the 

federal government’s lack of 
commitment to green efforts, 
sustainability should not be 
placed on the back-burner.

The Trump administration 

began 
by 
expunging 
all 

references to climate change 
from the official White House 
website. Then, the President’s 
budget 
proposed 
that 
the 

Environmental 
Protection 

Agency’s 
(EPA) 
funding 
be 

reduced 
31 
percent. 
Trump 

also ordered a review on the 
auto-industry’s fuel emission 
standards set by the Obama 
administration, 
essentially 

striking a deal already set in 
place. This week, the President 
determined that the United 
States will withdraw from the 
Paris Climate Accord, in which 
the United States pledged to 
lower its annual greenhouse 
emissions 26 to 28 percent below 
2005 levels by 2025.

It is ample clear from these 

examples 
that 
the 
Trump 

administration does not have an 
agenda that contributes to the 
nation’s sustainability efforts. In 
fact, budget cuts to the Region 
5 EPA office (which serves 
Michigan and several other 
Midwest states) and persistent 
rumors of its closing suggest that 
Michigan will not have federal 
help fighting the battle against 

climate change. Therefore, it’s 
more important than ever that 
the University and its students 
put sustainability efforts at a 
priority.

Furthermore, as an institution 

committed to remedying racial 
disparities, it is essential that 
the University — and the state 
— care about climate change. 
Climate change, pollution and 
other 
environmental 
issues 

disproportionately 
affect 

minorities and the poor in the 
United States. Those who live 
in poorer areas are more likely 
to breathe dirtier air, and less 
likely to have health insurance 
to fight against the damaging 
effects it produces. According to 
a 2009 University of California 
study in Los Angeles, African 
Americans were twice as likely 
as others to die in a heatwave. 
Additionally, climate change has 
disastrous effects on the labor 
and supervisor sector, which is 
largely comprised of Hispanic 
employees. In a case study I did 
on Long Beach, Calif., examining 
the I-710 freeway corridor and 
the Port of Long Beach, the 
negative environmental effects 
of these two issues were largely 
taken 
by 
disproportionately 

impacted poor minorities.

Even 
the 
environmental 

catastrophe 
amplified 
by 

government negligence in Flint 
clearly targeted minorities. If 
there had been more resources 
committed to environmental 
justice, Flint may have had safer 
environmental conditions.

If we as a University care 

about racial progress, we also 
need to care about sustainability 
and 
climate 
change. 
The 

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 
Initiative is critical, but it is 
important more than ever that 
sustainability initiatives work 
in tandem to it. Not only does it 
address an issue our government 
fails to prioritize, it improves 
some racial inequalities DEI 
looks to address.

If you care about the planet 

and its future, you should 
support increased sustainability 
efforts at the University. And 
while it may be less obvious, 
if you care racial equity, it 
is important you care about 
sustainability.

— Brennan Pope can be reached 

at popeb@umich.edu.

BRENNAN POPE| COLUMN
STEPHANIE MULLINGS| COLUMN

We act cruelly 
and violently 
against each other, 
even on our own 
campus