The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, November 14, 2017— 3
prejudice motivation will not be
tolerated and will be sanctioned,”
Sarkar said. “Not only will you
be sanctioned for the act you
committed, but you will also be
sanctioned for the motivation that
you had to commit the act.”
E.
Royster
Harper,
vice
president for student life, discussed
the degree to which OSCR is
engaged in the process of these
incidents.
“(Students) believe the only
recourse is the criminal recourse,”
Harper stated. “Sometimes it’s not
a crime in the criminal kind, it is
a violation of our own values and
standards.”
Martin Philbert, provost and
executive
vice
president
for
academic affairs, served as a
second guest speaker and reported
University
President
Mark
Schlissel believes the University
should not tax the income of
graduate students.
“These are people who have
already engaged in undergraduate
education
and
are
going
to
contribute to society in a deeper
and
sometimes
broader
level
through the acquisition of even
higher education, and adding a
financial tax on that commitment
to deeper engagement to society
just seems unwise,” Philbert said.
“It puts them in financial jeopardy
and deepens the divide between
those who can afford and those
who we would like to bring in but
can’t necessarily afford.”
Though the University would
like to reach this goal, the reality
of budgeting interferes with any
chance of it. According to Philbert,
current budget proposals, being
in the tens of millions of dollars
with some reaching $20 million,
create a challenging obstacle for
administrators.
However, based on this financial
need among students, Philbert is
hopeful to make tuition as low as
possible.
“There is a clear sense among
staff and the student body that
along with making a healthy living,
there is a healthy need to make
the world a better place, but that
frequently comes at the cost of
making a healthier financial living,
so I think we need to provide as
affordable education as we possibly
can,” Philbert said.
Philbert also discussed the
faculty’s role in diversity, equity
and inclusion and how to create
a more open campus climate that
welcomes dialogue.
“The nearest I have come to it is:
Are we welcoming of everyone?”
Philbert
asked.
“Within
that
welcome we are mindful of the fact
that people come from different
places, different experiences, and
they are all here, so that for faculty,
students and staff this is a place of
learning.”
When discussing solutions to
reach this goal more effectively,
Philbert
emphasized
the
importance of using the humanities
to connect with people rather
than relying solely on science and
numbers.
“Let’s
not
underestimate
the power of the humanities in
describing the world, describing
society and the power of using
the narrative rather than the
measurement,” Philbert said. “One
of the ways that President Schlissel
has articulated this is by placing
a greater emphasis on public
engagement.”
Sami Malek, Senate Assembly
member and associate professor
of internal medicine, discussed the
need for more open dialogue, since
many faculty members believe they
will be marginalized or labeled if
they stand up for an issue that is
important to them.
“We ought to look at the way
we are permissive towards open
dialogue,” Malek said. “There are
many places in this University and
this society that are not open to
open dialogue, and unless people
feel that they can say what’s
on their mind without feeling
ostracized for it, I think we’re
missing the boat.”
STATEMENT
From Page 1
Read more online at
michigandaily.com
about normative narratives of
transpeople coming out as feeling
like people are trapped in the
wrong body when they’re a kid,”
ze said. “I actually came out as
trans in my late twenties.”
At the time Nicolazzo worked
at the University of Arizona,
primarily
with
students
in
fraternity
and
sororities.
Ze
moved to Ohio where ze attended
Miami University to pursue hir
Ph.D. in Student Affairs in Higher
Education, and saw it is as chance
to start over and come out.
In deciding on a topic for hir
dissertation, Nicolazzo explained
ze wanted to think about what
life was like for people who
didn’t necessarily have the same
privilege that ze had, to move to a
new place. Ze noted ze didn’t have
a traditional transgender college
experience.
“When I moved to Ohio I didn’t
really have a whole lot of trans or
gender nonconforming or gender
queer people to spend time with,”
ze said. “So I thought doing this
research would be a way not
only to write my community into
existence but to find a community
to spend time with in the first
place, and really try to think
about how we could do this
project together — me and the
participants.”
Nicolazzo explained what ze
called the transgender paradox
— that there appeared to be a
lot of research and writing on
the transgender identity, new
communities, new industries and
new disciplines in the late-20th
century, yet there was not a lot of
research on transgender college
students.
As part of hir work, Nicolazzo
spent
18
months
with
nine
transgender college students; ze
spent time on campus without
them, observing the campus, and
then spent time with them. Ze
traveled to the places the students
enjoyed on campus and those they
avoided, as well as the events and
classes they attended.
In
compiling
hir
findings,
Nicolazzo explained it wasn’t
fair to simply pull together and
“package” the common themes,
because there are too many ways
to consider one’s transness, gender
and identity. Ze explained those
identities change across time and
space as well. Instead, ze explained
ze wanted to discuss the ways in
which the participants’ narratives
converge, or arrive, at similar
points, but also how they diverge,
or depart from one another, so as
to not lose outlying moments.
Ze explained the students ze
observed seemed to understand
what cultural discourses were
operating on their campus.
“There
was
a
binary
understanding of gender,” ze
said. “There were only two ways
people could exist on that campus.
You could either be a cisgender,
nontrans man, or a cisgender,
nontrans woman.”
Ze found the participants could
easily articulate what these two
groups looked like.
Additionally,
Nicolazzo
developed the term “compulsory
heterogenderism.”
“Participants would talk about
how their gender identities were
erased and instead they were
understood through stereotypical
notions of sexuality,” ze said.
For example, one participant
in Nicolazzo’s study identified as
agender. This student explained
identifying as agender would
require an explanation for what
agender meant. Since people don’t
typically understand transness,
the student explained, it was
easier to identify as a lesbian,
because that is how this person
was perceived.
“This is about cultural erasure,”
ze said. “Both the notion of
compulsory heterogenderism and
the gender binary discourse are
what I call twin cultural realities.
This is kind of the cultural ether
in the air and constructs college
campuses as spaces in which trans
people are not understood nor can
they be understood.”
Another key component of
Nicolazzo’s discussion was talk
of resilience. However, ze wasn’t
interested in using the word in
the stereotypical sense, where it
is often paired with words like
grit. Ze explained the notion of
grit implies one is living in a toxic
environment and individualizes
the reality of someone needing
to push through, rather than
considering the negative cultural
climate itself.
Nicolazzo
explained
participants did many things
to navigate their toxic climate.
Some described not walking past
certain areas, what ze described
as a practice of resilience. Some
would listen to music or text as
they walked.
“All of these (are) small, little
micro-examples of how it is that
we’re able to navigate through our
day.”
Nicolazzo also discussed what
ze described as the labor of being
trans on campus.
“The ways in which knowledge
is commodified and packaged
and basically sold to students
who are then seen as consumers
of that knowledge and then spill
it out all over tests … in much the
same way these trans participants
were often put on the spot to do
the work of educating cisgender
people on campus,” ze explained.
At a fall welcome event for the
LGBTQ community at the school
Nicolazzo observed, ze explained
the chief diversity officer actually
called on the trans and gender
queer community to teach the rest
of the community what they need
to know.
“This was exhausting that
students were basically told in no
uncertain terms you need to teach
us what we need to know: you
different people — is the words
that weren’t there — need to teach
us normal people what we need to
know,” ze said.
Nicolazzo
explained
hir
findings don’t mean anything
unless they are used to change
how campuses are constructed.
Mark
Chung
Kwan
Fan,
assistant director for engagement
at the Spectrum Center, said there
is a lot of conversation around
how to support trans students on
campus. Fan explained Nicolazzo
has been a pioneer in this space.
He also said he thinks measures
taken to support trans college
students vary from college to
campus.
AWARENESS
From Page 1
Read more online at
michigandaily.com
Organizations and the School
of Social Work Student Union.
This
year’s
proposal
also
leans upon the University’s
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
strategic
plan
to
argue
divestment represents a campus
commitment to inclusion by
uplifting marginalized voices of
Palestinian students.
During CSG’s final meeting
in
October,
more
than
50
members of the Latinx Alliance
for Community Action, Support
and Advocacy, expressed their
support of divestment as well.
“It is my moral obligation
to stand here in solidarity with
my Palestinian brothers and
sisters,” Public Policy senior
Gloriela Iguina-Colon said. “As
Latinx people we know what
it feels like to be run out of
our homes, to know that there
are
legacies
of
colonialism
persisting today, to feel in
our souls the pain of ours and
others’ oppression, to know
that our liberation is bound
together.”
For many Jewish and pro-
Israel students, the implications
of a resolution for divestment
align
with
the
broader
Boycott, Divest and Sanctions
movement, though SAFE states
its resolution is unaffiliated.
Many Jewish students said
they feel divestment promotes
anti-Semitism.
University
of
Michigan Hillel, an organization
providing
programming
for
Jewish students on campus,
recently circulated a petition for
students who oppose divestment
and the BDS movement to sign.
In a statement to The Daily,
LSA senior Joshua Blum, chair
of Hillel, said the petition is
evident
of
the
resolution’s
divisiveness.
“The resolution pits different
student groups against each
other, rather than promoting
the diversity of voices,” he said.
“For me, I oppose divestment
because I feel as if it targets the
one Jewish state unfairly and it
is not conducive to solving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Last January, after the
2016 resolution to divest on
the University campus failed
by a vote of 34-13, then-LSA
junior Gaby Roth — a CSG
representative — and then-LSA
sophomore Eli Schrayer — a CSG
representative and member of
Hillel — proposed a resolution
to fund monthly luncheons
to promote dialogue between
sides of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. Then-CSG president
David Schaefer, an LSA senior,
vetoed
the
effort,
arguing
CSG’s priorities did not align
with the values put forth by the
dialogues, and voiced concern
SAFE did not sponsor the
resolution.
The luncheon measure did
not pass, even after the body’s
judiciary committee overturned
Schafer’s veto. Roth, along with
members of the Palestinian
and Israeli community, met
unofficially four times, but still
opposes the resolution due to its
perceived ties to BDS.
“It’s hard to see that this
movement, the BDS movement
that #UMDivest is part of, is
anti-Semitic because it’s not
necessarily blatant swastikas
being painted around campus,”
she said. “I think that at this
point I can really relate to some
of the calls to action in the
resolution and I understand
a lot of what they are saying
just from hearing some of
the author’s perspectives and
stories and family history. It’s
all real and it’s all their own
truth. But with that said, I
think that divestment is really
problematic for a few reasons,”
she said. “There are things
happening in Israel that I really
stand against, but at the same
time it’s a complex issue and
this just doesn’t paint the full
picture.”
The
Egyptian
Student
Association countered Blum’s
points on division with an
email
statement.
Supporting
divestment, the board stated,
is a cause uniting marginalized
communities in their efforts
to be heard and supported on
campus.
“ESA
strongly
supports
SAFE’s mission to divest from
companies that profit off the
violation of human rights of
the Palestinian people,” the
statement reads. “ESA is part
of a large campus coalition that
stands with this movement,”
it read. “This is what real
DEI looks like — listening to
marginalized
and
silenced
voices on campus that are being
amplified by communities of
color. We urge CSG to listen to
these communities and not to be
complicit in this abuse.”
CSG
representative
Hafsa
Tout, an LSA senior authored
the resolution this year. She
agreed on the need for dialogue,
and emphasized its place within
divestment.
“It’s not just dialogue between
students at that point,” she
said. “It’s an institutionalized
conversation
around
this
topic. If a committee—which
the resolution calls for—will
decide whether or not the
University will divest, and to
get there you have to start that
institutionalized dialogue on
the issue.”
Potential for Backlash
Even as SAFE members take
action, they said they remain
fearful of the repercussions of
their activism. Divestment, they
said, has received the support
of faculty, including tenured
professors,
These
faculty
members,
however,
remain
silent on the issue due to similar
concerns of losing their jobs.
A SAFE member argued the
issue’s playing field is unlevel
given no professors can publicly
support the effort.
“The people who oppose
the resolution usually bring in
administration
or
professors
to speak and have institutions
backing them up,” the member
said. “Although we have the
same (support) as well, it’s
that that institutional support
cannot be voiced and show
because they are scared.”
At
first
reads
of
the
resolution last week, LSA Rep.
Jay Cutler, a Public Health
junior voiced concerns about
the direct impact Palestinians
face. One of the SAFE members
answered the query to The
Daily,
describing
the
many
threats affecting her day to day
life.
“I
know
specifically
a
Palestinian student who was
at the frontline of this issue,
she literally attended therapy
sessions because she was put
on a blacklist for voicing her
concerns about the violations
of human rights of the people in
her country,” she said.
The SAFE member went
on to argue consequences for
speaking in favor of divestment
play out differently in terms of
student welfare than anti-divest
students.
“When you’re sitting there
studying and then you get a
tweet from a blacklist or a
tweet that literally says we’re
watching you, obviously that’s
going to take away from your
focus,” she said.
The national — and global
— context
Attempts
at
institutional
action
towards
divestment
at the University campus has
primarily remained contained
in CSG chambers. According
to University spokesman Rick
Fitzgerald, there has not been
“involvement in this topic.” LSA
senior Nicholas Fadanelli, LSA
Student Government president,
also confirmed he is not aware
of divestment being brought to
LSA SG.
In
fact,
no
governing
student body at any U.S. college
or
university
had
passed
resolutions to divest from Israel
until April 19, 2003, when Wayne
State
University’s
Student
Council voted 9-7 in favor to
call upon its administration to
divest from companies doing
business
with
Israel.
The
Wayne State University Board
of Governors signed a statement
which reads: “Therefore be
it resolved that the Board of
Governors
of
Wayne
State
University supports the October
2002 statement of the President
and will not take action to
divest the university in interests
it may hold in companies that do
business in Israel.”
Other
local
divestment
efforts were soon successful,
as the University of Michigan-
Dearborn’s student government
passed
a
similar
resolution
one year later in 2004. For
all of SAFE and #UMDivest’s
struggles,
U-M
Dearborn’s
Student
Government
passed
five
additional
divest
resolutions in six years. Though
the group brought the measure
to the same Board of Regents
CSG reports to, yet none of the
resolutions gained an actual
foothold with the board after
being deemed not in accordance
with the board’s policy on
student activism.
Outgoing U-M Dearborn
student body President Fiana
Arbab
gave
her
farewell
speech at the Board of Regents
meeting held at the University’s
Dearborn campus this March.
Once
again,
she
brought
up
the
government’s
most
recent successful divestment
resolution that passed last year.
Regent
Mark
Bernstein
(D) spoke out at the meeting,
expressing his deep sentiments
against BDS.
“I
believe
it
is
an
intellectually bankrupt, morally
repugnant expression of anti-
Semitism,” he said. He outlined
a set of criteria known as the
“3-D Test of Anti-Semitism”
that argues the merits between
constructive criticism of Israel
and anti-Semitism.
Arbab recounted the weeks
leading up to the Regents
meeting in an interview with
The Daily. She said Schaefer,
then-University student body
president, repeatedly asked to
review her address to the board,
offering help and eventually
suggesting to not bring up the
divestment issue at all.
“He had requested that I
send him my speech for at least
a week straight,” Arbab said.
“He didn’t know exactly what
I was going to do or say, but he
did know that I was going to
bring up divestment. He wanted
to have a phone conversation
with me in ‘preparation for the
Regents meeting’ to help me
out, and I knew exactly what he
was doing. He tried to advise me
on how I should bring it up, or
like, ‘Maybe you shouldn’t bring
it up at all, but if you did be very
vague.’”
DIVEST
From Page 1
Read more online at
michigandaily.com