10
Thursday, July 6, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
D
ear Mr. Carlson,
I had not heard of you
prior to the “Tucker Carlson
Interview Request” I received to my
work account last weekend (forgive
me, Fox News wasn’t ever really my
thing).
And then I looked you up a bit. And
read about you. And watched some of
your videos. I reread the email:
We’re looking to discuss the free
speech bill that was proposed in
Wisconsin, which aims to protect the
first amendment on college campuses
in the state. I read that you find the
law ironic, and it would be great to
hear more of your perspective about
why you’re opposed to this bill. It was
obvious to me that your producer
read my contribution to Inside
Higher Education where — I thought
— I had made my stance clear.
I am happy, however, to unpack
more of my thinking, here, in a
space where I control the narrative,
uninterrupted and unedited, as I do
not have an interest in theatrics. I will
first focus my perspective on your
team’s use of the word “protect.”
It is clear that you agree with
what lawmakers in Wisconsin and
elsewhere are attempting to achieve:
politically neutral college campuses
in the name of “protecting” free
speech. Campuses where all speech
is considered equally valuable, no
matter how morally repugnant
(see “The Bell Curve”), no matter
how intellectually empty (see also
“The Bell Curve”), no matter how
culturally toxic (see, again, “The
Bell Curve”) and no matter how
psychologically
dangerous
(see,
absolutely, “The Bell Curve”).
I highlight “The Bell Curve,”
here, as it is one of the more recent
examples out of Wisconsin — and is
a form of speech that gloms onto the
belief that white men are morally,
intellectually, and psychologically
superior to anyone not white and
male.
This is just one example of the
kind of speech that our white, male-
dominated Wisconsin legislature
wishes to see protected by way
of illegalizing even the mildest of
opposition (and as though there are
not already mechanisms in place to
deal with that which is actually illegal
activity — such as violent protest).
That being said, what if “The Bell
Curve” argued the exact opposite
— that white men are scientifically
proven to be morally, intellectually
and psychologically inferior to non-
white,
non-male
counterparts?
Moreover, would you stand quite
as stoically — as silently — behind
campus speech that wishes to
highlight
the
radicalization
of
young white men? What about
speech equating whites and white
supremacy with terrorism? To what
extent would you stand by idly,
as your identity is marginalized,
minoritized, threatened and called
into question by people who claim
to know better, as has historically
been the case for people of color and
marginalized populations? If you
wish to see this bill in Wisconsin
come to fruition as written, then
I invite you — in the name of
consistency — to quietly abandon
the very forum upon which you rail
against social change and progress
on a nightly basis.
Because my background and
expertise is in literacy education,
Mr. Carlson, I am going to draw
from this field to argue the
following:
There is no such thing as a
politically neutral campus. No
speech is neutral, no message free
of ideology and power-relations.
To speak at a college campus
or educational institution is to
encourage thought in one direction
or another. To illegalize protest and
campus activism in the name of
neutrality is also a political stance
— a politics of silencing. Moreover,
it is to delude the public into believing
that a depoliticized campus is possible
when “forced” to become one by law:
an exercise deeply dependent upon
civic illiteracy.
In sum, when you have values —
whether you are a talk show host,
lawmaker, campus visitor, student
or college administrator — you have
politics.
To conclude, I wish to address the
irony embedded in your stance:
You support Wisconsin’s attempts
to “protect” free speech at the same
time lawmakers have eliminated
tenure protections for educators
and researchers across the state,
thereby threatening intellectual and
academic freedoms — again, the
sorts of freedoms I presume you wish
to see “protected” (despite, I should
point out, your stated stance against
tenure and intellectual protections).
If you want so badly to see speech
“protected,” can I count on you, Mr.
Carlson, to stand beside me when my
academic and public articles about
white privilege and white supremacy
fall into the wrong hands, thereby
resulting in threats to my livelihood
and well-being? Will you stand with
me, Mr. Carlson, should Wisconsin’s
Board of Regents make decisions
about my future — decisions not in
my favor — if and when they disagree
with my research and teaching about
whiteness and white supremacy —
an objectively large and growing
field of study dating as far back as the
beginning of the 20th century?
Will you pull for me, Mr. Carlson,
when groups like Professor Watchlist
and
The
College
Fix
publish
something about me and my work,
in an unveiled attempt to harm
my career? Am I being cynical as
I presume to know the answers to
these questions?
Make absolutely no mistake: to
claim neutrality is a political act; to
force neutrality is a political act; to
illegalize protest is a political act. To
silence opposition is a political act.
To support campus speech while
railing against tenure protections is
an exercise in hypocrisy, at best.
I am not sure that it’s “free speech”
you purport to want to protect
as much as you wish to protect
perspectives that have only ever
advantaged you and many of your
followers at the expense of social
progress. Rather than hide behind
a thinly veiled commitment to free
speech, you might ask yourself:
Which speech do I want protected
on college campuses and at whose
expense? Whose speech do I want
protected and at what social cost?
Finally, it is out of reverence and
love for social progress, education
and my institution that I respectfully
declined submitting myself as your
punching bag. But perhaps I’ll be
up for it next time, if and when
tenure and intellectual freedom are
reinstated in the state of Wisconsin,
and if and when you come to terms
with the reality that you cannot
support one without supporting the
other.
Christina Berchini is an assistant
professor at the University of Wisconsin
Eau Claire. A native New Yorker from
Brooklyn, she received her Ph.D. in
curriculum, instruction and teacher
education
from
Michigan
State
University. Her research on race won
the 2016 Distinguished Dissertation
in Teacher Education Award from the
Association of Teacher Educators. Her
writing on race has been published
extensively in both academic journals
and mainstream outlets. Her scholarship
centers on Critical Whiteness Studies
and has appeared in the Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, English
Education, The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy and other scholarly
venues.
Op-ed: A professor responds to Tucker Carlson
CHRISTINA BERCHINI| OP-ED
I
n
just
under
a
century,
humanity has gone on to create
revolutionary medical devices that
have saved millions of lives. Within the
next century, doctors will be replaced
by artificial intelligence, surgeries done
by world-renowned surgeons will be
conducted by near-perfect robots and
citizens of developing countries will
be receiving proper healthcare. These
aren’t optimistic statements, but in fact,
they are very realistic, and we should
accept this change. But to what extent
do we sacrifice what it means to be
human to the hands of artificiality?
By placing a dependency on tests
such as CAT scans and MRIs, “we not
only overlook simple diagnoses that
can be diagnosed at a treatable, early
stage, but we’re losing so much more
than that,” Dr. Abraham Verghese, a
physician and professor at Stanford
University School of Medicine, stated
during his TED talk “A doctor’s touch.”
“We’re losing a ritual.”
He goes on to describe this ritual as
“the power of the human hand — to
touch, to comfort, to diagnose and to
bring about treatment.” This is not to say
the medical scans have been faulty, but
rather, it is our growing dependence on
them that raises this concern. I mention
this because during my sophomore year
of high school, I had injured my wrist
after falling in basketball practice. The
pain was gradually increasing, as was
the swelling. Nonetheless, I went home
with some ice assuming it would heal
overnight. The next day, my wrist was
more swollen and the intensity of pain
was greater, which resulted a trip to the
hospital to get X-rays. Not one thought
had occurred to go to my pediatrician
to get an expert opinion before having
to get X-rays. This conscious yet quick
decision showcases a prime example of
how quick we are to turn to technology
rather than seek a health professional’s
opinion.
For some reason, we need proof of
the disease or injury before we fully
trust the expertise of a doctor. But
when it comes down to the matter,
it is the doctor’s words that are most
comforting while we strive to distance
ourselves from the very proof that
shows that we are hurt or ill. Will a
greater dependence on technology
leave patients with little to no emotion?
Imagine a conversation with a Siri-like
artificial intelligence software instead
of a nurse or doctor. It will ask about
your background, your symptoms,
your medical history, just like your
doctor; however, with a monotone
voice showcasing zero compassion and
empathy to how you are feeling. There
is also an off-chance of the following
conversation to take place:
Artificial Intelligence: Hello. Please
state your name, age and reason for the
visit.
Me: My name is Sarang, I’m 19 and
I’m feeling a bit under the weather
today.
Artificial Intelligence: Ok Sirong, the
weather is 75 degrees with sunshine all
day.
Me: I want a real doctor.
These conversations may in fact
be a privilege to many individuals, as
another argument arises regarding
the
incorporation
of
technology,
specifically for ordinary sick visits,
which would certainly be very cost
effective and efficient in developing
countries. To those who lack access
to proper healthcare, a quick, cheap
machine could do wonders. Take for
example the country of India. Home to
over a billion people, it has about 0.725
physicians per 1000 people according
to the World Health Organization as
of 2014. By calculating proportions,
that gives the country around 725,000
physicians in the country. Now
compare this to the United States, which
has 2.554 physicians per 1000 people.
With a little over 320 million people, that
would give the country approximately
817
,000 physicians, almost 11 percent
more than India. That’s about 80,000
more physicians in a country that is a third
in population size than India. It’s safe to say
that technology would positively disrupt
the healthcare system by improving the
lives of millions in not only India, but also
similarly developing countries.
While it makes complete sense to use
technology to better mankind, a computer
will never replace the art of building a
doctor-patient relationship. Vinod Khosla
stated in his article, “Technology will
replace 80 percent of what doctors do.”
Physicians will actually get more time to
spend with their patients due to a detailed
understanding of the medical results with
the help of technology
. By replacing the
time a doctor spends collecting data with a
smarter, efficient machine, the doctor can
talk to the patient. The best of both worlds,
right? It’s a bit scary to think about the rise
of technology
. With its help, revolutionary
breakthroughs occur, yet there is always
a sacrifice, whether it be money spent or
human touch. There is no stopping this
advancement, but it is vital to preserve
what makes us humane. Maybe there
is a synergistic relation between
the machine and the doctor
waiting to blossom, but for now,
let’s appreciate the human touch
for as long as we can.
Sarang Modi is a junior in the College
of Literature, Science, and Arts.
SARANG MODI| OP-ED
Op-ed: The inevitable rise of technology