By
allowing
Richard
Spencer to speak on campus,
the Editorial Board believes
the University would offer
a
platform
for
Spencer
to
spread
legitimate
hate
speech. Spencer advocates for
the establishment of a “white
‘ethno-state,’”
“peaceful
ethnic cleansing” and has
adopted
Nazi
terminology
for
the
press.
Though
hate
speech is hard to
define, we believe
Spencer’s speech
poses a reasonable
threat to public
safety.
Spencer’s
speech has incited
rampant violence
in
the
past,
most notably in
Charlottesville,
Va., last August,
when
Heather
Heyer
died
protesting
at
a
Unite
the
Right
rally
which
Spencer
organized.
Furthermore,
Florida Gov. Rick
Scott
called
a
state of emergency
when
Spencer
spoke on the campus of the
University of Florida in October.
Allowing Spencer to speak
would also be contradictory
to the University’s diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
ideals. We cannot condone
the
immorality
(and
irresponsibility) of providing a
platform for white supremacist
views at our University.
Due to the protections of
free speech under the First
Amendment, simply denying
Spencer an opportunity to
speak will likely spark a
legal battle. Other prominent
public universities, such as
Michigan
State
University
and Penn State University,
currently find themselves in
lawsuits initiated by Spencer
after denying his request to
speak. His behavior can be
categorized
as
attention-
seeking, and until firm legal
precedent is established, his
tactics will continue from
university to university.
Therefore, not only is this an
opportunity to take direct
action against hate speech,
but to fight alongside other
universities
in
developing
a legal weapon to prevail
against
these
reactive
lawsuits.
The
University
can work to set new legal
precedents
that
would
likely help protect smaller
universities that may not be
able to afford hefty legal fees.
We
acknowledge
that
even if the University were
to forcefully fight to keep
Spencer off campus, he may
still prevail. The lawsuit is
risky, as the University could
relinquish all control they
may have over scheduling
Spencer’s
visit.
Measures
like
scheduling
Spencer’s
potential speech during a
restrictive time — such as
over a school break — and in a
less central venue on campus
may not be possible in the
case of a lost lawsuit.
However, as
the
Editorial
Board
has
written
about
in
the
past,
the
string
of
racist
actions
on
campus
has
harmed
the
perception
of
campus
safety
and
inclusivity, and
the
University
should
show
unrelenting
solidarity
with
minority
students in the
current political
climate.
The
University
needs to match
its
rhetoric
of
student
solidarity
and inclusiveness with its
actions. Accepting Spencer’s
speaking request will only
add fuel to the fire of a
troublingly hostile climate.
Regardless, the University
needs
to
be
proactive,
whether by legal measures
or security, in protecting
our
campus
and
our
students from intentional
and degrading hate speech
and an inf lux of dangerous
white
supremacists
organizing on campus.
I
suffer
from
Raynaud’s
disease, an autoimmune
disease in which blood
vessels
in
my
hands
and
feet
spasm
due
to
cold
temperatures,
causing
a
temporary decrease in blood
supply.
With
Raynaud’s,
sensitivity
to
temperature
varies from person to person.
Typically, I can experience
symptoms at temperatures 65
degrees or lower if I am not
bundled up. There is no cure
for Raynaud’s disease, but if
I wear appropriate clothing
and am careful about touching
cold objects, I can live a fairly
normal life.
In my early teens, I began to
lose my hearing. Being hard of
hearing is difficult, but because
I don’t need an American
Sign
Language
translator
and my hearing aids are not
very
visible,
most
people
don’t realize that I’m hard of
hearing. Once I was diagnosed
with these two ailments, I did
not have much of an idea as
to what to do since I had not
learned about these issues in a
health class or at home.
Raynaud’s disease and being
hard of hearing are examples of
a larger spectrum of illnesses
called “invisible disabilities.”
An
invisible
disability
can
be
described
as
primarily
neurological but encompasses
all disabilities that are not
seen
by
others.
They
are
often incurable. In addition
to
autoimmune
diseases
and
visual
and
auditory
impairments,
an
invisible
disability can include mental
health
problems,
sleeping
disorders or chronic pain.
Among
college
students,
invisible disabilities are more
common
than
one
would
think.
Seventy-five
percent
mental health disorders begin
before the age of 24, making
college a trying time for some.
Additionally,
mental
illness
is prevalent among college
students. Twelve percent of
freshman students said they
were
frequently
depressed
in 2016. For these reasons,
increasing
awareness
of
invisible disabilities, especially
among teens and young adults,
is exceptionally important.
Invisible
disability
narratives
are not represented enough in
current conversations. Taboo
surrounds invisible disabilities,
especially in regard to mental
illness. This stigma prevents
personal narratives from being
displayed. Unfortunately, this
leads to those with invisible
disabilities not getting the care
and treatment necessary to
maintain good health.
This significantly decreases
quality
of
life
for
those
individuals.
A
2017
USA
Today
article
found
that
students
who
knew
about
mental health resources on
their campus chose not to use
them because of the negative
stigma associated with mental
health problems. With studies
showing that the risk for
suicide decreases substantially
once one begins counseling,
this stigma creates a deadly
problem for those struggling
with mental health. Those
with an invisible disability,
like mental health disorders or
hearing limitations, deserve the
resources and care necessary
to improve their health so they
can participate in society to
their fullest capacity.
A
lack
of
awareness
surrounding
invisible
disabilities makes the disability
itself seem fake. Because my
disabilities are not apparent,
I feel as if I constantly have
to justify the struggles I face
because of them. There is a
common misconception that
I am making up the pain from
Raynaud’s or that I can actually
hear fine but am just bad at
paying attention. Neither of
these are true.
Other
comments
I
have
received
regarding
my
disabilities are usually along
the lines of how I should be
grateful, because “I could have
it worse.” I have always found
this type of rhetoric extremely
offensive.
These
comments
are a thinly veiled attempt at
invalidating the pain that those
with invisible disabilities face.
While it is true the majority
of invisible disabilities are not
terminal, these limitations can
severely affect one’s daily life.
To
combat
these
misconceptions, I feel the need
to educate others on my invisible
disabilities. While I am happy
to answer questions, it is not my
job to combat people’s ignorance.
With information at everyone’s
fingertips, the burden should
not be on those with invisible
disabilities
to
educate
the
general population.
Increasing awareness through
conversation is an important
step in decreasing these types of
offensive comments. Education
is
key
in
creating
positive
change in the world of invisible
disabilities in particular and
disabilities in general.
Invisible disabilities and the
struggles they entail are real. I
want to remind those on campus
who struggle with an invisible
disability to remember they
are not alone and they deserve
respect
and
the
resources
they need to succeed. As a
university, we can support our
peers with invisible disabilities
by including them in our
discussions about disability.
I
would
encourage
those
without an invisible disability
to educate themselves to be a
good ally to those suffering.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, November 9, 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
From invisible to visible
EMILY HUHMAN | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Emily Huhman can be reached at
huhmanem@umich.edu.
BRETT
GRAHAM
A
s a senior, sometimes
it seems like talking
about plans has become
as mundane as talking
about the weather.
The
question
“Remind me, what
are
you
thinking
of
doing
after
graduation?”
with
all its monumentally
stressful
implications,
seems
to weasel its way
into
conversations
on a near-daily basis.
To this point, one response has
made me furrow my brow every
time: “Consulting.”
Based purely on specs, its
appeal
is
understandable.
According to best estimates,
the industry’s profits totaled
over $71 billion in 2016, with
projections
promising
even
more growth this year. In
terms of experience gained,
salaries for recent graduates,
job security and esteem, few
other industries can compete.
But work of this sort in one’s
20s or 30s is the ultimate
case
of
putting
the
cart
before the horse. In the end,
its rise is taking some of the
most talented young minds
graduating from this university
and others away from making
actual change in the world.
First and foremost, the idea
that the thousands of young
people who enter this industry
each year are all
experts
in business, politics, public
health, finance, strategy or
management
is
far-fetched,
verging on absurd. Platitudes
aside,
the
difference
in
educational value between the
classroom and the real world
is substantial. Of course, they
have something to contribute
after four years of learning,
but why would a client pay
for
advice
from
someone
with absolutely no practical
experience? Where do newly
minted graduates fit into a
field centered on connecting
experts with companies and
campaigns in need? The senior
members of these firms did
not become experts from years
as junior researchers — they
did so by doing first and then
finding a platform to share
their knowledge. Trial and
error, not apprenticeships.
Some
of
the
country’s
best and brightest
choose,
oddly
enough, not to set
themselves
up
to
start a business or
run a campaign of
their own, but to
help someone else
make change in the
world. And why not?
It’s not as though
each of them lacks
a potential million-
dollar
venture
they
toss
around in the back of their
minds as they fall asleep, a
cause they’d like to champion
or lend their voice to.
Instead, it can be ascribed
to the sense of security that
accompanies
continued
achievement. Success is much
easier to process when it is
measured by “U.S. News and
World Report,” or when you
know that McKinsey, Bain,
BCG and Deloitte will look
phenomenal on a résumé and
that your tenure there will
be the envy of friends and
relatives. Some have said these
groups, nearly all of which
began their consulting in the
1970s and have experienced
a meteoric rise from there,
have succeeded in branding
“themselves as a kind of Ivy
League of adulthood.”
What no one has been able
to explain to me to this point is
what is all that exciting about
consulting.
Granted,
there’s
the opportunity to learn from
an array of clients, and there
is value in variety. But when
thousands of companies are
all going to the same five or 10
firms to inform their decisions,
that must eventually preclude
variety. Not long ago, the chief
executives of Boeing, General
Electric,
Hewlett-Packard,
Morgan Stanley and PepsiCo
were all alumni of the same
three firms. It is a structure that
seems reminiscent of the type of
home improvement shows one
might see on HGTV: a cookie-
cutter formula for change, but
instead of open floor plans, wood
finishes and rustic accents, it
has to do with networking,
PowerPoints and social media
strategies. Ultimately, the final
products look decently similar to
one another.
So why not come up with a
product that’s entirely your own
while you’re young and have
the chance to make mistakes?
My guess is that in five, 10,
20 years, as these minds are
moving into nicer offices and
starting families, these bright,
young professionals will be
significantly
less
likely
to
leave their world and take
risks. Furthermore, if you are
the type of person who honestly
sees themselves with a career
in
consulting
and
nothing
else, isn’t the more beneficial
experience out there in the
world? You might not settle
down at McKinsey before you’re
30, but by the time you do, you
won’t be starting at entry level.
Meanwhile,
the
true
innovators, the names that
people
will
remember
as
the titans of their industries
in the 21st century — Jobs,
Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg —
have no experience in, and
often distaste for, the world
of consulting. In fact, Warren
Buffett, the second-wealthiest
man in the world, railed against
the
profession
just
a
few
months ago. At a shareholders’
meeting, the 84-year-old made
a joke about the fact that “If
the board hires a compensation
consultant after I (die), I will
come back — mad.”
Make no mistake. Consulting
work is an excellent career
choice by almost every metric.
Taking one of those jobs is not
mutually exclusive with doing
good in the world. But it’s not
a job for a recent graduate —
it’s a job for an old veteran. We
should think about whether
some of our best minds are
being lured away from the
real
high-risk,
high-reward
work of truly changing the
world around us by steadier
salaries and the guarantee of
prestige. Doing will never be
as easy a path as consulting,
and students who have huge
potential should take this as a
welcome challenge rather than
something to shy away from.
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
Pick doing, not consulting
FROM THE DAILY
Keep Spencer off campus
H
istorically and contemporarily, universities have been
the center of social change and political discourse.
Consequently, the nature of free speech on university
campuses is a deeply important issue. Recently, Richard Spencer,
a white supremacist and an “alt-right” leader, has asked to speak
at the University of Michigan. His request prompts a much-needed
discussion on free speech and how the University will respond to
it. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board believes that the University
should fight Richard Spencer’s request to speak on campus for the
purposes of campus safety.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
It adds character
Brett Graham can be reached at
btgraham@umich.edu.
Illustration by Joe Iovino.