O

n Thursday, President 
Donald 
Trump 

reiterated 
his 

controversial 
and 
widely-

criticized assertion that “many 
sides” share blame for the 
violence 
in 
Charlottesville, 

Va., in August. Trump cited 
recent 
clashes 
between 

antifa, 
a 
militant 
anti-

fascist 
organization 
and 

white 
supremacist 
groups 

in 
Charlottesville 
as 
well 

as subsequent rallies across 
the nation, claiming antifa’s 
aggression justified his earlier 
reluctance to denounce white 
nationalism. 

Antifa’s 
methods 
— 

particularly their willingness to 
provoke violence with the far-
right — are worthy of criticism, 
but one can denounce these 
methods without establishing 
moral 
equivalency 
between 

antifa and the white supremacists 
they oppose.

In 
the 
weeks 
since 
the 

Charlottesville 
rallies, 

considerable attention shifted 
to antifa, the far-left political 
movement that has taken a 
visible role in opposition to the 
so-called 
“alt-right.” 
Antifa 

was present in Charlottesville 
and took on more central 
roles in subsequent rallies in 
Berkeley, Calif., and Portland, 
Ore. Videos of antifa members 
attacking right-wing protestors 
led 
conservative 
political 

commentators to vocally decry 
the group. After the episode 
of violence in Berkeley, House 
Minority 
Leader 
Nancy 

Pelosi released a statement 
condemning the group and 
calling 
for 
the 
criminal 

prosecution of instigators.

Though 
other 
liberals 

have 
defended 
or 
expressed 

admiration for antifa, Pelosi 
is right. There is compelling 
evidence that antifa members 
incited the political violence in 
Berkeley and elsewhere. Jake 
Tapper, a CNN journalist, alleged 
that antifa members attacked 
journalists in Charlottesville.

It is prudent to denounce 

these 
methods, 
as 
our 

democracy thrives only under 
the framework of peaceful and 
respectful dialogue. Violence, 
even 
if 
retaliatory, 
against 

political opponents, no matter 
how vile their views, only 

degrades our ability to find 
and 
implement 
constructive 

solutions 
to 
our 
problems. 

Antifa’s violent tactics have 
demonstrated that the group 
aims to silence its political 
opponents through force and 
intimidation, 
which 
is 
an 

ugly and detestable strategy 
regardless of ideology.

Such violence and intimidation 

is neither justified nor pragmatic, 
as it only lends credence to 
President 
Trump’s 
claims 

of 
moral 
equivalency 
while 

also 
perpetuating 
the 
white 

nationalists’ 
false 
narrative 

of white persecution by the 
left (when in fact, right-wing 
extremists have been responsible 
for 74 percent of politically-
motivated killings in the past 
decade). 
Furthermore, 
this 

violence 
irreversibly 
isolates 

antifa 
from 
the 
political 

mainstream, 
fracturing 
the 

opposition to white nationalism. 
The nation needs to form a united 
front against white supremacists, 
neo-Nazis and other far-right 
hate groups in order to effectively 
oppose white nationalism, but 
antifa’s belligerence impedes our 
ability to do so.

Perhaps most detrimentally, 

antifa has become a political 
distraction, drawing attention 
away from the anti-hate message 
of 
the 
counterprotest 
and 

siphoning criticism away from 
white nationalism. The national 
debate over antifa has shielded 
white nationalists from further 
criticism, even as they continue 
to stage rallies and marches 
across the United States. It is 
clear 
antifa’s 
methods 
have 

overshadowed its message, and 
that it is now a glaring liability 
in the struggle against white 
nationalism.

However, criticism of antifa 

should in no way establish, or 
even imply, a moral equivalency 
between 
antifa 
and 
white 

nationalism. Though labeled 
an 
anarchic 
group, 
antifa’s 

decentralized nature prevents it 
from developing a cohesive far-
leftist ideology. Rather, antifa’s 
ideology is rooted in opposition 
to white supremacy, bigotry and 
racial hatred — after all, the 
group’s name is shorthand for 
anti-fascism.

Contrast 
this 
to 
the 

ideals 
of 
the 
white 

nationalist demonstrators in 
Charlottesville: overt racism, 
anti-Semitism and homophobia. 
Many of them openly identified 
with neo-Nazi organizations 
and 
other 
hate 
groups. 

Perhaps some of the “alt-right” 
marchers 
would 
bristle 
at 

being labeled a neo-Nazi, but 
it cannot be denied that they 
willingly associated themselves 
with 
neo-fascism 
while 

enthusiastically 
participating 

in a rally that had become a 
symbol of white supremacy. 
Indeed, the demonstration was 
promoted as a rally to “Unite 
the Right.”

This 
leads 
to 
another 

key 
distinction. 
While 
the 

“alt-right” 
marched 
in 

Charlottesville 
under 
the 

coordinated pretext of unifying 
the various factions of the “alt-
right”, the counterprotestors 
were an ideologically eclectic 
group linked by only their 
common 
disgust 
of 
white 

supremacy 
and 
neo-Nazism. 

The 
anti-white 
nationalist 

crowd 
in 
Charlottesville 

included clergy, students and 
community leaders, with antifa 
only comprising a small, albeit 
visible, 
minority. 
Heather 

Heyer, 
the 
victim 
of 
the 

Charlottesville car attack, was 
not a radical, but an innocent 
woman brave enough to stand 
against racism.

Heyer’s 
tragic 
death 

exemplifies why it is inaccurate 
and disrespectful to push a “both 
sides” 
narrative, 
especially 

when 
characterizing 
the 

events in Charlottesville. The 
aggressive methods of antifa 
warrant explicit denouncement, 
but critics must be wary of straw 
man-ing the counterprotestors, 
as 
the 
vast 
majority 
are 

not 
represented 
by 
antifa. 

Furthermore, 
any 
criticism 

of antifa must not establish a 
pretext of moral equivalency 
between white supremacy and 
its opponents. The strongest 
condemnation 
should 
be 

reserved for white nationalism, 
as it is simply misguided to 
continue to focus on antifa when 
the more clamant matter is the 
pervasive presence of bigotry in 
American society.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Wednesday September 20, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

F

or many students, a 
dorm room functions 
as a home away from 

home, a personal space that 
is sacred, a place where they 
should always feel comfortable 
and safe to come back to. But 
this week, this space was 
violated. Four students in 
the 
Michigan 
Community 

Scholars Program came home 
to their dorm rooms in West 
Quad Residence Hall to find 
racial slurs graffitied on the 
nametags 
on 
their 
doors. 

Only one day later, racist 
graffiti, along with a picture 
of Dylann Roof — who shot 
and killed nine members of a 
predominantly Black church 
in Charleston, S.C. — were 
discovered on a mural on East 
Liberty Street in downtown 
Ann Arbor. 

These are just two of the 

horrific instances of racism 
that we have seen on campus, 
and there have been a number 
of other notable instances 
of publicly displayed racism 
during and after the 2016 
presidential election of Donald 
Trump. These incidents have 
only served to create a hostile 
and unsafe environment for 
many students on our campus, 

and as editors of the Opinion 
Section of The Michigan Daily, 
we stand against this hatred 
and racism and we stand with 
and among everyone affected 
by 
these 
incidents 
during 

these times and always.

As 
administrators, 

professors and communities 

across campus are reacting to 
these events and expressing 
their solidarity, we felt it was 
important that we remind 
those around us that we too 
stand with those affected. Our 
section prides itself in being an 
inclusive space where people 
feel comfortable expressing 
their opinions, but as was said 
in our letter from the Editorial 
Page Editors, racist, hateful 
speech is not tolerated in our 

section, and we condemn the 
actions of those individuals 
that made those they targeted 
feel unsafe on our campus.

As a newspaper, we are an 

institution 
that 
is 
forever 

grateful for the rights we have 
to exercise free speech and the 
rights afforded to us through 
freedom of the press. But 
as Wendy Woods, associate 
director of MCSP, said in her 
address 
during 
the 
MCSP 

solidarity 
event, 
incidents 

such as the racist graffiti on 
students’ dorm rooms is not 
an issue of free speech. It is 
threatening, hateful and plain 
and simple racism that we 
cannot allow to masquerade 
as something protected by the 
First Amendment.

Signed,

Anna 
Polumbo-Levy 
and 

Rebecca Tarnopol

Editorial Page Editors

Max 
Lubell, 
Madeline 

Nowicki, Anu Roy-Chaudhury, 
Steph Trierweiler and Ashley 
Zhang

Senior Opinion Editors

Antifa impedes progress

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

 In solidarity with Black students

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS & SENIOR OPINION EDITORS | OP-ED

I

n light of recent events, we offer these brief words, straight from our hearts:

1. We are glad you’re here, studying with us.

2. Please come introduce yourself at office hours, even if you don’t need help with anything. We’d 

like to get to know you.

With love,

COREY DULIN | COLUMN

Shade

M

y story is nothing 
new — I’m a Black 
girl with darker skin, 

so finding foundation and other 
makeup in shades that don’t 
make me look like a ghost is a 
challenge. At the very 
least, 
most 
brands 

have a few “darker” 
shades to give the 
illusion of inclusivity, 
but this facade comes 
crashing down when 
many darker-skinned 
women put them on 
their skin.

Popular drugstore 

brands are especially 
bad when it comes to 
making products for 
those with more melanin than 
most. Going into any popular 
drug store, I know the darkest 
foundation or powder of most 
brands will be too light for me. 
But even brands at stores like 
Sephora and Ulta have this 
problem too.

In 
addition, 
products 

marketed to Black women are 
more likely to contain harmful 
chemicals. So there are few 
products to begin with, and 
when brands do offer products 
for Black women, they’re more 
likely to be harmful than those 
marketed to the general public.

Makeup has recently made 

me a bit emotional. Constantly 
walking through makeup aisles 
filled with products you know 
will be way too light or make 
you look ashy gets irritating very 
quickly. When a brand actually 
takes the time to ensure it carries 
products for people with skin 
too dark for the token brown 
foundation shade, it is a fantastic 
shock to me. The release of 
Fenty Beauty by Rihanna has 
made me feel like the industry is 
making more of a space for me. 
It’s hard to find brands with 20 

shades of a foundation, let alone 
40. I wasn’t disappointed, which 
is not the norm for me when it 
comes to makeup.

Even 
before 
I 
saw 
the 

products, I was excited. Rihanna 

and 
everyone 

behind 
the 
Fenty 

brand 
made 
it 

clear through their 
advertisements and 
posts on Instagram 
that 
this 
makeup 

isn’t for a select 
group of people. It 
isn’t just for people 
in the skin tone 
range of “Porcelain” 
through “Tan.” The 
brand prides itself on 

this, with a quote from Rihanna 
on the home page emphasizing 
that “Fenty Beauty was created 
for everyone.” Unlike many 
other makeup brands, Fenty 
doesn’t just create the illusion of 
inclusion — it actually delivers.

Other brands’ unwillingness 

to meet the same standards as 
Fenty doesn’t make sense. It’s 
financially smart to make more 
products catered to women with 
darker skin. For example, despite 
being a minority of the U.S. 
population, Black women spend 
80 percent more on cosmetics 
than “general consumers.” This 
discovery was made years ago, 
but it seems like many popular 
brands have decided to ignore 
this memo. If brands offer 
darker shades they won’t be 
disappointed with the additional 
revenue they generate because 
there’s a market — even Fenty’s 
darkest foundation shades are 
selling out.

Fenty Beauty just launched 

on Sept. 8, but is not the only 
inclusive brand on the market. 
Supermodel Iman created her 
own cosmetics line in the ’90s 
specifically for women of color. 

Brands like L.A. Girl Cosmetics, 
Anastasia Beverly Hills and Nars 
also stock their shelves with 
colors that complement many 
skin tones. Fenty Beauty is part of 
a trend of bringing more products 
to the market for people with 
darker complexions.

This topic is about more than 

makeup, it’s about who is valued 
and who is represented. The 
makeup industry as a whole has 
not made a strong attempt to 
cater to women with dark skin, 
and a lackluster attempt at best 
to cater to women with lighter 
shades of brown skin. For years, 
the beauty industry has given 
women with these skin tones no 
attention; it expects these women 
to be happy with the few brown 
colors on shelves and call it a day.

The beauty industry uses the 

same approach in advertising. 
No one expects them to offer 
dark shades, so they don’t feature 
dark-skinned models in their 
advertisements. 
Sometimes, 

brands or stores decide to use a 
model with lighter brown skin, 
but this is not representative of 
all people with brown skin.

Fenty 
Beauty 
and 
other 

brands like it signal a shift away 
from tokenism and toward 
inclusivity. 
We 
internalize 

what we see on shelves and 
elsewhere in stories and in 
society. As a society, we need 
to be exposed to more diverse 
products and images so beauty 
standards are less exclusive 
and specific. We can embrace 
people of all shades, and show 
that there’s a place for them, 
in beauty and in society as a 
whole. Hopefully, diversity will 
become the norm.

“We stand with 

and among 
everyone 

affected by these 

incidents.”

COREY
DULIN

SARAH NEFF | CONTACT SARAH AT SANE@UMICH.EDU.

ASSORTED U-M FACULTY | OP-ED
An Open Letter to African-American 

Students from U-M Faculty

For a full list of contributors, see MichiganDaily.com

Corey Dulin can be reached at 

cydulin@umich.edu.

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

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.

