A
re you up?” I ask my old
neighbors in Minnesota.
“Yes!
How
is
Michigan’s campus faring?”
“There is certainly a lot of
protesting
that
has
occurred,” I remark.
“What are you feeling
right now?”
After
a
chuckle,
they respond, “There’s
finally a president that
can
Make
America
Great Again.”
Call
me
crazy,
but
once
Donald
Trump won the 2016
election,
I
called
one of my hometown
neighbors to talk about the
result.
The
husband
and
wife
are
staunch
Trump
supporters. I was curious, in
an unconfrontational manner,
why they voted, and questioned
why
they
supported
(and
continue to support) this man.
I identify as a moderate
liberal
with
libertarian
leanings. When I heard Ben
Shapiro, a conservative political
commentator and writer, went
to the University of California,
Berkeley campus last week to
speak, I began to question the
months- (if not decades-) long
debate on free speech. When
Shapiro was set to arrive, a
multitude of police officers
entered the campus, buildings
were closed off and roads were
blocked for fear of violent
protest. In addition, this coming
week is “Free Speech Week” at
UC Berkeley, where political
and provocative commentators
such as Milo Yiannopoulos,
Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon
will come to speak.
After these occurrences, I
really questioned what exactly
is “free” speech. Frequently,
I am troubled by some of
the talking points of these
contentious speakers, but it
is too often that I don’t know
how to process the responses
to these speakers. When I read
about the rioting and screaming
protesters during Ben Shapiro’s
talk, I queried in a completely
philosophical manner on why
there is such a visceral response
toward both the protestors and
the speakers. What really is
hate speech? Is “hate” speech
free speech? How should we
approach this discourse? What
is truly an “open mind?” What
is moral: to defend the speech
of controversial speakers, or to
attack it?
“Hate speech is not free
speech” is one of the phrases
I hear a lot on campuses, and
I think that the nuances of the
free speech debate rest partially
on a lack of understanding
definitions.
Hate
speech,
defined by the American Bar
Association,
is
speech
that
“offends, threatens,
or insults groups,
based
on
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
sexual orientation,
disability, or other
traits.” Though this
might be obvious,
the
root
of
the
argument
against
this speech isn’t if
this is wrong, it’s if
this is illegal.
This
question
creates
a shifting line of what is
accepted
and
what
isn’t.
Some commentators suggest
that simply being offended
by
“micro-aggressions”
is
inappropriate
on
college
campuses.
However,
lackadaisical action on this
front can be harmful to the
well-being of students who
do fear when blatant racist
sentiment is spewed.
Moreover, on July 19, the
Supreme Court ruled in Matal
v. Tam, a case against a band
wanting to call themselves
“The
Slants”
(which
was
considered a slight against
Asian-Americans),
that
the
name was subjectively racially-
charged
rhetoric
but
still
protected
under
the
First
Amendment.
But
the
vast
majority of speech, in my view,
is extremely arbitrarily “hate
speech” and, depending on
one’s perspective, “offensive”
as the definition suggests. So
why is it that there is this deep-
seated reaction to controversial
speakers attending events on
campuses?
It isn’t hard to recognize that
humans exist on a biological
leash: We are able to control
our desires, our emotions, our
well-being, etc. This goes in
conjunction with the heart of
the free speech debate. This
isn’t an issue of what should
or should not be said. Rather,
it is what should and should
not be debated. And the rise
of this question is mostly due
to the fact that politics and
culture have never been more
intertwined. Moreover, culture
is highly personal, as many of
us know. Politics can be slow
and arduous. Culture is vibrant
and creates the norms in which
most “hate speech” derives its
importance. The significance
here is that discourse is derived
from the Freudian logic of the
id and ego.
We
know
that
people
often vote based on their gut
decisions. However, I think that
this conclusion has expanded
not just in voting because, in my
view, the 2016 election shifted
the
cultural
and
political
spheres much closer together.
Therefore, the more irrational,
emotional side (id) is at the
forefront of our debates today.
Politics, however, were framed
by our founding fathers as
a highly rational, ego-based
discussion. It is important to
note that the id is far stronger
that the ego, and too often we
can mistake one for the other.
In my view, these two spheres
have merged closer, which has
specifically created a broader
debate on free speech.
If Ben Shapiro and Ann
Coulter come to this campus,
I am confident that a sizeable
portion
of
the
student
population will protest from
their ids and, sadly, believe
they are thinking logically.
When we are pressed about
our belief systems today, I see
more often that we appeal to an
emotional side and can’t truly
defend our beliefs. This pushes
easily-repeatable
phrases
that make us think we are
rational, when in fact, we are
appealing to a mob mentality
without supporting or truly
understanding what we say.
I
strongly
support
the
idea that through education,
we are able to create a more
equitable place. A significant
portion of education is being
psychologically well-rounded.
Therefore, I find it silly to think
most humans can’t discern the
difference in rhetoric that is
blatantly, morally wrong and
rhetoric that is controversial.
Even so, actions are always
more important than words.
This means that those who
are inspired to act hatefully on
ethically ambiguous claims are
far more morally corrupt than
those who listen, question,
debate
and
disavow
their
views. I guarantee if students
were to listen, as I do, to Ben
Shapiro’s speeches (although
I greatly disagree with many
of his viewpoints), understand
his logic, prepare for his
speech
on
their
campuses
and debate him (and possibly
win), it would be far more
impressive. Encouraging an
inquisitiveness to how these
individuals
came
to
their
conclusions, however uneasy it
might be, is necessary in fixing
the hyper-partisan landscape
that we exist in today.
Racist and sexist speech
should be discouraged entirely
from our campus, but when
Ben
Shapiro
debates
the
pay gap, I caution against
resistance and hurling insults.
Any topic of new policy needs
to be questioned, debated and
examined. While I recognize
the importance and right to
protest such events, I don’t
think protests such as the
one on Berkeley’s campus are
constructive or conducive to
further conversation. If one of
these individuals comes to the
University of Michigan, I ask
that we not resist, resist, resist,
but engage, engage, engage.
Come ready with an open
mind, listen to their talking
points and prepare to logically
overthrow their arguments,
even if it offends you (as many
of their speeches do). Don’t
arrive not truly understanding
your position, saying irrational
and commonplace phrases that
only contribute to a new essay
on the lack of discourse on
college campuses.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4— Friday, September 22, 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
L
ike
most
caffeine-
dependent
students
at this institution, I
make my rounds to Espresso
Royale on South University
Avenue before my morning
lecture. Once I reach for
the door handle, I glance to
my right and notice a sea of
orange, ripped up pavement
and vacant storefronts. You
may ask, am I in the first-
ranked college town in the
country? You bet I am. But
South
University
Avenue’s
appearance may make you
wonder, “How is this the case?”
The
construction
on
South
University
Avenue
has lasted for too long. But
make no mistake, the area
was in desperate need of a
facelift. What is commonly
regarded as a hub of Central
Campus has been losing its
flair at a rapid rate, and new
construction projects intend
to reverse this trend. The area
is in disrepair and with new
developments springing up,
there is a fair chance the high
concentration of construction
will take longer than anybody
expects. But maybe this wait
will eventually be worth it.
In a July article, the Daily
reported
the
construction
on South University Avenue
would be complete by mid-
August. Approaching October,
the pavement improvement
project is not done, weeks
after the first football game.
As MLive reported in May,
South University Avenue is
in the beginning stages of a
dramatic streetscape upgrade.
This means the sound of dump
trucks hauling concrete won’t
end anytime soon.
The
street
repair
construction is ongoing but
has taken a scaled-back form.
What once was an impassable
street from East University
Avenue to around Washtenaw
Avenue is now limited to the
strip between East University
Avenue and Church Street.
Pedestrians
are
free
to
traverse the sidewalk, but
car traffic is still limited.
Nonetheless, South University
Avenue remains an eyesore
and I constantly have to take a
detour while driving.
The changing ecology of
businesses has dramatically
shifted
as
well.
Middle
Earth, the novelty shop in
business for more than four
decades, shut its doors two
and a half years ago. BurgerFi
surreptitiously
closed
at
the end of last school year
for reasons unbeknownst to
practically anyone. Ulrich’s
Bookstore, though not closing
its business, is in the midst
of relocating further down
South
University
Avenue.
The list goes on and on. The
change in tenants over the
past four years exacerbates
the
uncertainty
of
South
University Avenue, and the
rebound
since
has
been
incredibly prolonged.
Developers
have
not
capitalized on what could
be
a
thriving
restaurant
scene. Though a few choice
establishments
still
exist,
they’re
too
far
and
few
between for the area to count
as a bona fide destination.
As a result, business gets
lost to the trendier South
State
shopping
district.
Make
no
mistake,
South
State Street has also changed
considerably over the past few
years. Even my neighborhood
—
the
intersection
of
State and Packard streets
—
has
transformed;
old
establishments are leaving
and new ones are struggling
to remain. But the difference
between South State Street
and South University Avenue
is abysmal — South State
Street (between East William
Street and Huron Street) is
home to far fewer vacant
storefronts — if practically
any at all.
One important distinction
between South State Street
and South University Avenue
is the number of high rises.
While South State Street is
practically bereft of high rise
apartments, South University
Avenue is the campus mecca
for
such
edifices.
And
more
continue
to
spring
up, including at the 611 E.
University
Ave.
address,
limiting foot traffic on the
street’s
intersection
with
South University Avenue.
The new high rises plan on
opening up more ground-level
retail, which would surely
bring much-needed business to
the area. While student housing
is an important concern, I
worry the currently insatiable
demand for these properties
will dwindle at some point. If
this occurs, the lack of focus
on making South University
Avenue a leisurely destination
will see its consequences. The
cycle will continue again: not
much to do, more traffic cones
and undesirability.
After exiting the doors of
the coffee shop to head to
class, I take one final look
over South University Avenue.
As cars drive by, dust fills up
the miasmic air, leaving the
city block covered. The low
visibility makes it difficult to
see beyond the orange traffic
cones. On the other side lies
the hopefully not-too-distant
future of this current state of
mishigas.
I can’t bear to see another
orange traffic cone on South
University Avenue ever again.
After the construction finally
ends, hopefully the situation
will improve.
Is speech ever truly free?
DAVID KAMPER | COLUMN
The trepidation of revitalizing South U
LEVI TEITEL | COLUMN
Levi Teitel can be reached at
lateitel@umich.edu.
NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU
Diag Dogs
DAVID
KAMPER
David Kamper can be reached at
dgkamper@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 600 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation
to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.