4

Thursday, June 29, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

T

he first time that I ever 
found a spider in my house, 
after a bit of screaming and 

running around and yelling for my 
mom, we eventually caught it in a jar 
and set it free outside. And except 
under dire circumstances, I still try 
to make sure the little guys, and gals, 
make it out alive.

Which is why when the Daily’s 

Editorial Board first discussed 
the deer cull — a city-wide plan to 
manage the deer populations by 
hiring sharpshooters to kill, and 
now sterilize, deer — I was adamant 
that a deer cull was entirely wrong 
in any circumstance. It was an 
issue I saw as framed as one of 
convenience for humans, and I 
believed that was wrong. The 
deer were here before humans, we 
built on their land, we’re driving 
on their land, so we shouldn’t 
have the authority to kill them — 
especially since the deer cannot 
defend themselves against it. And 
at the time, the Editorial Board 
was almost completely divided, so 
we didn’t take a formal stance on 
the issue. 

Last fall, when it came time to 

endorse a candidate for a contested 
city council seat, I was wary of the 
fact that one of the candidates, 
Chuck 
Warpehoski, 
was 
an 

outspoken proponent of the cull. 
Having been a staunch opponent 
of the cull up to that point, I really 
struggled with the fact that it 
was one of the issues he explicitly 
approved of. Nonetheless, because 
we believed he was, overall, the 
stronger candidate of two, I, along 
with the majority of the Editorial 
Board, voted to endorse him.

Through various interviews, 

we learned Warpehoski was 
an environmentalist, and his 
support for the deer cull was 
one that came from an ecological 
standpoint. The overpopulation 
of deer is a problem for people 

and drivers, but more crucially 
it is making Ann Arbor less 
ecologically diverse, as we have 
removed their natural predators. 
So, when the Editorial Board 
finally decided to try, again, to 
take a stance on the deer cull last 
winter, as I looked around the 
room, I could see how framed in a 
new light, with new information 
in hand (via Warpehoski), the 
deer cull made more sense to 
some people than it had before 
— it definitely made more sense 
to me. In the end, the vast 
majority of the Editorial Board 
voted to endorse the deer cull. If 
we are given more information 
on divisive issues, it may help 
different sides get their points 
across better. 

In a recent interview, City 

Council candidate for Ward 1, Anne 
Bannister, cited transparency as a 
primary campaign platform. And 
it should be, as I believe it is one 
of the most important things for a 
public official to work toward — yet 
it is one that many still fail to reach 
because goals that are viewed 
as more “tangible” seem to take 
priority. But I believe this is one 
of the most crucial issues. While 
Bannister was speaking more 
broadly about the need for citizens 
to trust their representatives, it got 
me thinking about how important 
transparency is, not only from 
elected officials, but also at the 
more personal level.

In this case, I saw very clearly 

how Warpehoski’s transparency 
when it came to why he supported 
the deer cull made me less wary of 
him, less wary of the cull and more 
able to see a side I had originally 
thought was completely wrong. 
Being able to more thoroughly 
understand the issue also had an 
impact on Bannister, who says in 
her interview, though an animal 
lover who believes animals should 

always be “treated with respect,” 
she realized the deer cull was 
necessary for rebalancing the 
ecology of Ann Arbor — an ecology 
that us, humans, unbalanced. She 
cited information she learned 
from Washtenaw Citizens for 
Ecological Balance.

There 
needs 
to 
be 
more 

Warpehoskis in public office, 
more Bannisters who take the 
time to explain their stances. 
Answers like ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ 
‘wrong’ and ‘right,’ only go 
so far and can shut down a 
conversation in a split second. 
Once I better understood the 
issue of the deer cull as not 
just 
about 
inconveniences 

for drivers, but as an issue of 
ecological imbalance — since 
humans eliminated their natural 
predator, the wolf — I could 
make a more informed decision. I 
could better evaluate arguments 
on each side of the issue. And 
even just between two friends 
or coworkers, transparency can 
often be key to allowing another 
person to understand your side.

That’s not to say I will change 

my mind every time I hear 
another side of an issue, and 
when it comes to protecting 
wildlife, supporting the deer 
cull is a pretty big exception. (If 
you look at my sad excuse for a 
Twitter account, you’ll see it’s 
mostly videos of baby animals.) 
But there is a problem, and the 
problem lies with not having 
access to the other side. Someone 
saying that they approve of x, or 
that they don’t like y, without 
an explanation, doesn’t lead to 
a conversation — more likely, it 
becomes two people who may 
now be angry at each other 
because they don’t understand 
the other side. Of course, if you’re 
trying to shove your viewpoint 
down someone’s throat, even 

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.

Start a conversation 

if you have all the facts in the 
world, it won’t matter. But simply 
explaining why you see the 
issue one way, without trying to 
persuade the other side, could 
have an effect.

It’s true, we shouldn’t have 

to give a reason for every single 
little thing we do in life, and 
there are tactical reasons not to 
talk about every little thing we 
plan to do, but when they impact 
many different people or they 
impact even one individual in a 
way that impacts them greatly, 
it’s important to be open to a 
discuss, to give more detailed 
reasoning. Not only when it’s 
the duty of someone in public 
office, but also, in larger part, it’s 
a simple way to make people feel 
as though you are listening and 
care that they have the tools to 
understand why a decision that 
may seemingly be inflammatory 
at first glance, is based in thought 
and fact.

We won’t always change our 

opinions, given more information 
from the other side, but there 
is almost no chance someone 
will change their mind if they 

are not even provided with the 
reasoning of the other side, we 
will almost never change our 
opinions. 
For 
many 
people 

who aren’t well informed on 
the issue, it’s hard to not look 
at something like a deer cull as 
completely unnecessary, another 
blow to our already endangered 
wildlife. So, I implore our elected 
officials, University of Michigan 
administration and any and all 
other actors of change, to just 
explain. Not simply disseminate 
pamphlets, 
or 
hope 
that 

journalists will write about the 
issues and environmentalists will 
post on their websites and blogs. 
And to everyone else engaged 
in a discussion with another: if 
you make more of an effort to be 
forthright, transparent, explain 
your reasoning, who knows? You 
could just start a conversation. 
You could just have an effect.

—Anna Polumbo-Levy can be 

reached at annapl@umich.edu.

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY| COLUMN

The first settlers, part three

REGAN DETWILER| COLUMN

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Summer Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

