U
niversity of Michigan
President
Mark
Schlissel
has
always
said the right things
about the value of a
liberal arts education.
In 2015, he said that a
liberal arts education
“prepares students to
lead in increasingly
multicultural
workplaces
and
community
environments.”
He
has
since
echoed
those remarks, stating
at a meeting with
student leaders at the University
of Michigan’s Dearborn campus
in 2016 that “the toolbox of the
humanities is really essential for
every educated person.”
Schlissel’s
explicit
support
recognizes
the
University’s
proud history and strength in
its liberal arts curriculum. More
than 40 LSA programs rank in
the top 10 nationally, and the LSA
faculty reads like a who’s who in
academia, with two professors in
LSA receiving MacArthur genius
grants just last week.
On paper, the University can
certainly lay claim to being
a
liberal
arts
powerhouse.
In
practice,
though,
LSA
increasingly seems to defer
to
the
undergraduate
pre-
professional
schools
at
the
University,
whether
through
funding, attention or general
caretaking.
Facilities
and
classrooms
primarily
used
for liberal arts studies appear
antiquated next to those in the
Ross School of Business and the
Ford School of Public Policy.
Advisory services and activities
to promote a sense of community
for students in LSA also lag
behind the intimate networks
created by those schools.
These
deficiencies
do
not
reflect a lack of commitment by
the University staff and faculty.
A student seeking help from a
professor undoubtedly will receive
assistance from the best minds
anywhere on campus.
Where the University stumbles,
however, is the disproportionate
attention seemingly given to
developing
communities
and
networks
in
its
professional
schools at the expense of its
liberal arts program.
This need not and
should
not
be
the
case. LSA’s reputation
as a leading liberal
arts
program
is
well-deserved
and
must
be
supported.
A
Pew
Research
Center
survey
of
1,408
technologists,
practitioners
and
education
leaders
concluded
that
the
most
important
skills in a rapidly automating job
market will be those that are more
irreplaceable and intangible, like
creativity, curiosity and empathy.
Contrary to some current
thinking, the liberal arts should
not be and, in fact, are not seen
as a luxury reserved for affluent
students, either. One survey of
5,000 graduating seniors found
that the students most likely
to major in the humanities or
social sciences were the first
in their family to have earned
college degrees.
No single remedy exists to shift
focus away from more specialized
pre-professional
schools,
but
the University has many tools
to promote the liberal arts and
preserve LSA’s reputation. Here
are some straightforward steps the
University can take:
1. Court more donors for
liberal
arts
scholarships.
The
fruits of liberal arts are so widely
appreciated in disciplines beyond
humanities that even those who
have endowed schools at the
University can surely be persuaded
to
support
multidisciplinary
education. After all, two of the
University’s 10 largest donations in
school history have partially gone
toward liberal arts studies and a
third, a $50 million gift from Helen
Zell for the Helen Zell Writers’
Program, was earmarked solely
for the liberal arts, albeit in the
graduate program.
2.
Invest
in
improved
classrooms in liberal arts buildings.
Students who view their classroom
environments as supportive and
positive tend to learn better. The
University is taking the right steps
with renovation plans for Weiser
Hall and the LSA Building, but two
of the biggest hubs for the liberal
arts — the Modern Languages
Building and Mason Hall — would
benefit from more modernized
classrooms.
No
significant
renovations have been made in
the Modern Languages Building
since its construction in 1972.
Only one major renovation, a $35
million project completed in 2003,
has been made in Haven Hall and
Mason Hall in the past 65 years. In
comparison, there has been $292
million in projects for the Business
School since 2004.
3. Make cohorts and mentorship
within LSA and liberal arts
programs
more
visible.
Peer
mentorship lets students serve as
advisers to one another and in turn
tempers the scale of a school as vast
as LSA. While many departments
have peer advisers, not many
students
know
about
these
resources. The Business School has
successfully adopted similar forms
of peer mentorship.
4.
Better
publicize
extracurricular
opportunities
related to the liberal arts. A more
accessible and dynamic website
advertising
undergraduate
journals, internships and research
opportunities
would
increase
student involvement on campus.
The LSA Opportunity Hub is a
big step in the right direction.
Increasing awareness of similar
initiatives would further elevate
our liberal arts program.
5.
Encourage
students
enrolled
in
pre-professional
schools to pursue interests
they have in the liberal arts.
Business leaders as diverse
as Mark Cuban and Slack’s
Stewart
Butterfield
have
championed the values of a
liberal arts education. Campus
participation in a liberal arts
education
should
extend
past
requirements
typically
completed
in
a
student’s
freshman year. As President
Schlissel has said, “A liberal
education teaches citizenship.”
W
here
is
the
line
between productive
debate
and
dangerous discourse?
At what point do
we, as the collective
public,
identify
specific
“speech”
as
blatantly
racist
rhetoric that is not
meant to be discussed
or
debated,
but
instead only meant to
inspire and amplify
the message to the
future followers of
modern-day
fascists
who endanger our democracy?
Last week, several of our fellow
students decided that a speaker
invited by the University’s chapter
of College Republicans was exactly
that — a racist whose speech would
do nothing other than poison
the minds of tepid followers and
further endanger the rights and
lives of minorities on campus.
And to be clear, Charles
Murray and his bestseller, “The
Bell Curve,” are on the wrong
side of history. His academic
work provides racists with an
actual source on which to base
their ignorant and disgusting
claims. But attempting to silence
anything this man had to say
was ultimately a detriment to
the cause of winning the literal
culture war we seem to be
descending into as a country.
Aside from the blatant disregard
of the very right of freedom of
speech on public universities that
protesters, professors and myself
so easily engage in, these actions
have undeniably further pushed a
segment of Americans away from
us and our ideas.
As
students
of
this
elite
university, we are some of the most
intelligent, active, informed and
well-connected members of our
generation; thousands of us will
most definitely go on to change
our society for the better. Yet it is
actions like this that automatically
disengage
and
distance
a
demographic of the population
that we need.
Capturing that demographic
wins us more than electoral
victories. If we truly want to
change this country,
if we actually want
to be the progressive
generation
that
advances
American
society
past
this
hellish
episode
of
our history, we need
to convey our liberal
and
progressive
concepts to a segment
of the United States
we
have
become
openly hostile to.
Because there are individuals
who regret voting for Trump.
There are Republican, right-
leaning and moderate Americans
who are looking at the lunacy
of
this
administration
and
understanding there may be a
need for a rational response to the
nationalistic and ignorant policies
that are plaguing this nation.
We’re on the right side
of history; we just need to
communicate to the others why.
But instead of that, we lock
ourselves
away
within
our
cities and strike “invaders” with
silencing
attacks,
drowning
them out as the equivalent to
the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan.
We further entrench ourselves
within these operating bases that
are found within the most liberal
echo chambers of major cities
and college towns, continuing to
bounce the same condemnations
of the lunacy of Trump and all
those who voted for him off one
another, doing nothing to engage
those who may even disagree in
the slightest.
Last
week,
the
protesters
served as an example of that. But
again, to be clear, Charles Murray
is a moron. His blatantly racist
writings are disgusting. Yet in the
totality of the spectrum of this
ideological struggle, silencing
this man was no victory, for it only
added ammunition to the Tucker
Carlsons of the United States who
will go on to exploit this and drive
the wedge of division further.
Because the protesters, our
fellow students, will be painted in
very broad and factually incorrect
strokes. Their actions will add
to the many other instances that
craft this false narrative of the
uncompromising, liberal, coddled,
safe
space-having,
triggered,
antifa-supporting
millennial
population that is going to destroy
the country. If only we could send
our generation to fight a couple
world wars, maybe we would
toughen up and stop caring about
our “feelings.”
The students who protested are
none of those things, though. They
are overwhelmed. Donald Trump,
a dotty old racist, is president. He
is so incapable of doing his job,
it’s not even worth the column
space to write about anymore.
The literal open displays of racism
occurring within the country are
alarming — so it is understandable
that a reaction to a speaker such as
this occurred.
Yet again, it ultimately will
add to our loss in bringing more
Americans onto our side.
As Murray said about the event,
“This was being streamed tonight,
right? The number of people who
are going to see what went on there
and are going to be moved further
right compared to the number of
people who saw that and say, ‘Oh
that’s great, this is what we want’
— and there’s asymmetry there.”
“This is what we want.”
I recognize I am writing this
from a position of privilege,
but I must stress that I believe
there is no merit in granting
these idiots what they want —
for us to react in this silencing,
oppressive manner.
Attacking and silencing this
moronic old racist that a handful
of mini-Paul Ryans wanted to
hear last week strategically may
not have been the best course of
action. The far-right has more
ammunition now, and it will
distort, warp and exploit this for
as long as possible.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, October 19, 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
Culture war
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
Look to the liberal arts
LUCAS MAIMAN | COLUMN
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
Lucas Maiman can be reached at
lmaiman@umich.edu.
SARAH NEFF | SARAH CAN BE REACHED AT SANE@UMICH.EDU
Being “Transparent” in social justice
LEVI TEITEL | COLUMN
I
n the finale of the third season
of Amazon’s “Transparent,”
the
Pfefferman
family
goes aboard a cruise ship during
the Jewish holiday of Passover.
Traditionally
during
Passover
seders, Jews recite the religious
platitude “next year in Jerusalem”
to mark the thousand-year longing
to return to the land of Israel.
Perhaps not coincidentally, season
four of “Transparent” does just
that: Maura, the matriarch and
protagonist of the series, presents a
lecture on gender, Judaism and the
Cold War in Tel Aviv with daughter
Ali in tow.
As
gender
and
Judaism
continue
to
be
preeminent
themes in “Transparent,” this
season
the
characters
also
struggle to balance tradition
and evolving mores. The new
season, released in the midst
of the High Holy Days, is
fitting for inner observation
of collective and individual
behavior. In a time of major
social upheaval, “Transparent”
helps us deconstruct the walls
that divide us.
In the era of identity politics,
what exactly does it mean to be
Jewish? How do different social
positions either reinforce or nullify
certain axes of oppression? These
relevant questions reveal the nexus
of spirituality, political power and
social consciousness. As students
come to grips with mounting anti-
Semitism, racism and Islamophobia
on college campuses, such moral
and
emotional
predicaments
become even more pressing.
Against the backdrop of the
Arab-Israeli
conflict,
these
complexities illustrate how the
Pfeffermans react to these schisms
ingrained in their psyches. First, let
me explain the history necessary
to understand this season. In
“Land and Power,” Anita Shapira
describes the paradigmatic shift
in Zionist art and literature
during the late 19th century and
the first half of the 20th century.
After
hundreds
of
years
of
persecution and marginalization,
Zionist leaders forged a new
mythology
and
an
archetype
to reimagine Jewishness. The
“new Jew” was a male, muscular,
strong-willed
individual
who
contributed productively to the
national community. This stood
in opposition to the diasporic Jew:
weak, dependent and emasculate.
As Shapira notes, what marked
men passing from the diaspora to
the Israeli community in literary
texts was his integration with
the kibbutz, a space where hard
work and collectivism shaped his
milieu. The same representation
of gender and masculinity in the
diaspora and national Jewish
communities still plays out in the
mythologies of mass culture today,
as demonstrated in “Transparent.”
Jill Soloway, the creator of
“Transparent,” both challenges
and feeds into this overplayed
mythology.
Soloway
makes
viewers question the histories
and emotions that bind humans
together. Borders and binarisms
that separate — whether they are
psychological or physical — are
inconsequential insofar as they
uphold the existing structure and
authority that first erected them.
How entrenched these separations
are is irrespective of the fact that
they once were manufactured.
By moving to Israel, Moshe,
Maura’s
long-lost
father,
was
able to reclaim his masculinity.
Juxtaposed alongside the non-
Israeli branch of the Pfefferman
family,
American
Jewish
masculinity operates in a very
different way. When the family’s
Israeli
security
detail
cajoles
Maura’s son Josh into shooting a
gun — an object so ubiquitous in
Israel — for the very first time, he
nearly shoots his mother. This is
a sign of his personal deficiencies
and insecurities, both a result of his
disorienting upbringing.
However, the most nuanced
and
provoking
representation
of Jewish and gender identities
this season comes from Ali,
the youngest of Maura’s three
children.
Ali
embodies
the
growing young Jewish sentiment
that questions the legitimacy of
the establishment.
Ali’s
gender-bending
performance at the Western Wall
is one such example this season.
Ali’s transgression is indicative of
a larger attitude of alienation and
inquisitiveness. Struggling with
what it means to simultaneously
act independently and belong to a
larger community is a quandary
not unique to Ali, but reflective
of where many Jews stand today.
Faced
with
representational
and spiritual exclusion, Jews
are
increasingly
creating
alternative community spaces.
College students specifically are
forging alliances with other faith
communities for mutual cultural
understanding and solidarity.
Between family in Tel Aviv and
friends in Ramallah, Palestine,
Ali learns about politics from
a different vantage point. Ali’s
political
realization
coincides
with another revelation — that of
nonconforming to gender. Both
Jews and Muslims claim the
Temple Mount — one of the most
contested sites of the conflict — as
theirs for religious significance.
As Ali scoffs at the comparatively
smaller
portion
women
are
allotted at the Western Wall, they
covertly put on a yarmulke and
walk over to the men’s section.
Their persistent questioning of
the status quo impels a dialectic
negotiating
between
multiple
identities:
woman,
nonbinary,
Jewish, American, ally.
Soloway, who also came out
as
nonbinary
this
summer,
views the political ecology of
this season through the lens
of intersectionality. As they
recently explained to Vulture,
“One of the meaning (sic) of
intersectionality is that even if
I wanted to choose between my
queerness and my Jewishness,
I wouldn’t, I couldn’t.” Placing
the
friction
brought
upon
gender identity issues alongside
this
more-than-70-year
sociopolitical context begs the
question: How did we arrive at
this moment?
During
the
Jewish
High
Holy Days, the inclination for
introspection summons feelings
of remorse and improvement.
Coming together as a community
is integral to understanding how
to put the concerns and needs
of others in mind. Reaching an
equilibrium helps us move beyond
rigid preconceptions and see things
for what they truly are, not as what
they should be.
While issues of social injustice
maintain their place within the
public’s
consciousness,
college
students
must
utilize
their
position to reinvigorate modes
of critical inquiry. It needn’t
be obligatory for everyone to
be gender studies scholars like
Maura and Ali to engage in the
discourse
surrounding
social
issues.
To
recognize
one’s
place as an individual within
a larger community is enough
to conceptualize how close we
actually are.
Levi Teitel can be reached at
lateitel@umich.edu.
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
LUCAS
MAIMAN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com