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.