5.6 percent is Hispanic or Latino, 
5.4 percent is Asian, and 66.3 
percent is white. According to the 
2016 U.S. Census Bureau, the state 
of Indiana has a 9.7 percent Black 
or African American population, 
a 6.8 percent Hispanic or Latino 
population, a 2.2 percent Asian 
population and a 79.6 percent 
white population.

Additionally, though Trump 

won the state of Indiana in the 
2016 election, 59.3 percent of 
voters in Monroe County, where 
IU is located, voted for Clinton.

In an email to The Daily, 

April Toler, a news and media 
specialist at Indiana University, 
provided a statement from the 
Nasser H. Paydar, the university’s 
chancellor, 
regarding 
bias 

incidents. 

“(Indiana 
University) 
is 

committed to providing forums 
for the free expression and 
exchange of ideas, including 
those we may not condone. Even 
when we vehemently disagree, 
we must strive to do so with 
mutual respect and civility,” 
the 
statement 
reads. 
“Open 

dialogue is central to academic 
freedom and our educational 
mission. The university abhors 
all forms of racism, bigotry 
and discrimination, including 
discrimination based on religious 
beliefs or political views.”

Stella Shaffer, a transgender 

woman, graduated from IU in 
spring 2017. She described IU’s 
campus climate as complicated 
but “polite.” As a result, she said 
a lot of people end up saying 
nothing.

“I think a lot of people are 

supportive and don’t know how 
to actually engage with that,” she 
said.

She said she thinks people who 

are hostile toward trans people 
and the LGBTQ community don’t 
necessarily want to say anything 
because they don’t want to be 
labeled as bigots.

“I feel like what happens is — 

with this culture of silence — I 
was walking through a campus 
where people actively either 
stared at me when they thought 
I wasn’t looking or actively tried 
to avoid eye contact or engaging 
with me in any sort of meaningful 
way,” she said.

In a later email, Shaffer 

explained, IU has taken some 
measures to make the campus 
more welcoming for LGBTQ 
students. 
Specifically, 
they’ve 

opened 
an 
LGBTQ 
housing 

space that she said she assumes 
would be friendly to transgender 
students and their housing needs.

“As new buildings are being 

built, they’re also doing a pretty 
good job of adding in some 
gender neutral bathroom spaces, 
which, of course, impact trans 
people enormously,” she wrote. 
“Not only do plenty of binary 
trans people not feel comfortable 
using the bathroom sometimes, 
but a binary bathroom system 
completely excludes non-binary 
folks.”

She also spoke on IU’s approval 

of an update to the undergraduate 
curriculum that includes a social 
justice component — something 
she is very pleased with. It would 
require students to take a certain 
number of classes pertaining to 
race and ethnicity or gender and 
sexuality.

Though Shaffer wrote she was 

not fully aware of the details, she 
explained IU had been slow to 
implement the new classes.

“As far as I’m aware, the 

administration specifically has 
been dragging its feet for a few 
years on implementing this new 
policy, despite the fact that it was 
introduced and approved by the 
most powerful and influential 
board of IU faculty on campus,” 
she wrote.

Lindsay Ewell is a senior 

at 
Northwestern 
University’s 

School of Communication. In 
an email, Ewell wrote certain 
groups feel marginalized on the 
Northwestern campus; however, 
she 
noted 
an 
emphasis 
on 

academic performance.

“The NU campus climate is 

very isolated, in part because 
of the pressure to perform well 
academically,” she wrote. “Some 
POC groups are close knit 
because of a mutual appreciation 
for NU’s struggles, but there’s still 
a clear differentiation between 
groups. I can certainly say that a 
lot of POCs and POC groups feel 
marginalized on campus.”

According to 2016 enrollment 

data for the class of 2020 at 
Northwestern, 8.5 percent of the 
student population is Black or 
African American, 13.6 percent 
is Hispanic or Latino, 20 percent 
is Asian and 46 percent is white. 
Comparatively, according to the 
2016 U.S. Census Bureau, the state 
of Illinois has a 14.7 percent Black 
or African American population, 
a 17 percent Hispanic or Latino 
population, a 5.5 percent Asian 
population and a 61.7 percent 
white population.

advocate for the investigation of 
companies in which the University 
of Michigan is invested that are 
tied to the violation of Palestinian 
human rights do so because they 
believe in advocating for what 
is just. I believe the authors and 
advocates of this resolution do not 
intend to target Jewish people, and 
I do not believe that criticism of 
Israel is inherently anti-Semitic.”

Sarkar outlined three specific 

points in her statement: First, she 
wrote she does not believe the 
Boycott, Divest and Sanctions 
Movement is completely distinct 
from advocacy for divestment; 
second, Sarkar said the refusal to 
allow Prof. Victor Lieberman to 
speak at last week’s meeting has 
since activated uncontextualized 
dialogue about the issue; and third, 
Sarkar wrote there is a necessity to 
address the fact that disagreement 
does not mean silencing.

“Ultimately, the spirit of this 

resolution is to elevate the voices of 
students who believe in protecting 
Palestinian 
human 
rights,” 

Sarkar wrote. “The spirit of the 
resolution embodies the University 
of Michigan’s mission statement 
— to challenge the present — and 
the University’s vision statement, 
which specifically says that we must 
dedicate ourselves to responsible 
stewardship of financial resources.”

Sarkar ended her letter noting 

she finds the assembly’s request to 
be reasonable.

“It is time for this issue to be 

elevated to the Board of Regents, 
regardless of the decision that it 
chooses to make on this question; 
in coming years, I am hopeful that 
the advocacy around this issue will 
continue to grow inclusively under 
the framework of community-
building and finding common 
ground,” Sarkar wrote. 

On 
Monday 
evening, 
the 

University of Michigan chapter of 
SAFE met with E. Royster Harper, 
vice president for Student Life, and 
Laura Blake Jones, dean of students, 
for a dialogue and conversation. 
Approximately 20 students were 
in attendance to discuss relevant 
campus 
climate 
and 
safety 

concerns, as well as the recently 
passed #UMDivestresolution.

The resolution passed for the 

first time in the University’s Ann 
Arbor campus history last Tuesday, 
and the results have been met with 
intense emotions across campus.

In 
an 
interview 
with 
the 

Daily, Harper explained her own 
thoughts on the resolution, and 
stated administration would be 
continuing their policies in making 
investment decisions based on 
financial 
reasonings. 
Harper 

also mentioned efforts from the 
administration in keeping targeted 
communities safe.

“We have Jewish students that 

are worried about their safety; we 
have Muslim and Arab students 
that are worried about their safety,” 
Harper said. “So we have a pretty 
active Department of Public Safety 
right now trying to be attuned 
to and mindful of this, and this 
conversation in the context of a 
national conversation.”

The administrators present at 

Monday’s dialogue declined to 
comment on specificities of the 
event. The Daily did not attend the 
meeting due to the personal nature 
of the event, but spoke to several 
student attendees afterwards.

LSA senior Andrea Sahouri 

attended the dialogue, and stated 
one of the most important aspects 
of the conversation was the way 
it exposed students to University 
officials that are open to hearing 
concerns, specifically for those 
students who may be feeling the 
administration is not intimately 
connected to conversation among 
the student body.

“I think the most important 

part of the meeting as a whole 
was letting the students of SAFE, 
and the community that SAFE 
brings together, letting them know 
that administration is available 
to them,” she said. “Throughout 
my whole college career I never 
felt 
comfortable 
to 
contact 

administration because I didn’t 
know that they were there for us.”

LSA senior Haleemah Aqel 

echoed similar sentiments towards 
the administrations’ presence, but 
also spoke of the unbiased nature 
under which the administrators 
confirmed they will be taking 
action.

“The thing that they emphasized 

is they obviously can’t take sides, 
which is obviously understandable, 
but just showing that if we ever 
need... to go to them or talk to them 
about anything that they’re there 
for us as students,” she said.

Another main point of discussion 

was 
safety 
concerns 
among 

students following #UMDivest.

While parts of the resolution 

were addressed, the conversation 
mostly focused on overall concerns 
of the students present, with 
administration 
reiterating 
the 

importance of students standing up 
for their own beliefs and not letting 
others take away this voice.

“At the end of the day they left us 

with the message that people are 
never going to agree with you all the 
time,” Sahouri said. “Sometimes 
you just have to really keep fighting 
for what you believe in and then 
focus your efforts on continuing 
that fight rather than focusing your 
efforts on people who are trying to 
bring you down.”

Students in opposition to the 

resolution were present at the 
dialogue, according to Sahouri. 
These students were not asked to 
leave the room, as Sahouri stated 
the SAFE members are open to 
others listening to their concerns.

While some students, according 

to Sahouri, feel discouraged the 

administration cannot take any 
immediate 
tangible 
action 
in 

solving marginalization on campus, 
she highlighted the opportunity 
to 
speak 
with 
administration 

was 
helpful, 
and 
she 
hopes 

such 
dialogues 
will 
continue 

in the future so as to affirm the 
University’s presence in hearing 
student concerns.

“I just thought it was cathartic 

to speak with someone who’s not 
in your own community about how 
you’re feeling,” Sahouri said. “It 
just feels like you’re finally being 
listened to.”

Outside of CSG, students in other 

organizations such as the Black 
Student Union and Latinx Alliance 
for Community Action, Support 
and Advocacy have supported the 
#UMDivest resolution.

This comes in contrast to a 

statement released by University 
of Michigan Hillel on Tuesday, in 
which members expressed their 
disagreement with the resolution.

Joshua Blum, chair of Hillel’s 

Governing Board and an LSA 
senior, sent the statement along 
with several other members of the 
board.

“While there is a diversity of 

thought 
toward 
Israel 
within 

our community, many students 
were united in feeling hurt by the 
rhetoric used to address the one 
Jewish State and our community,” 
the 
statement 
reads. 
“Anti-

Semitism manifests itself in many 
different ways. Some forms of 
anti-Semitism are more obvious 
such as Nazi marches, painted 
swastikas, and alt-Right chants. 
Contemporary 
anti-Semitism 

takes the form of subtle remarks, 
micro-aggressions, and reinforcing 
negative stereotypes of the Jewish 
community. We saw many of 
these injustices in Tuesday night’s 
meeting.”

The statement also touched on 

the denial of Lieberman’s presence 
calling it “silencing”.

“When Jewish representatives 

spoke about their experiences 
with 
anti-Semitism 
and 
anti-

Israel rhetoric, their concerns 
were dismissed,” the statement 
from Hillel reads. “Proponents 
of Divestment held up ‘silencing’ 
signs each time they heard a 
statement they disagreed with. The 
hypocrisy of silencing others while 
claiming to be silenced themselves, 
is antithetical to Michigan’s value 
of the free exchange of ideas. 
All students’ perspectives and 
identities are valid and should not 
be selectively silenced.”

The University has yet to release 

any action with regard to the 
resolution’s passing, but University 
spokesman Rick Fitzgerald noted 
last Thursday that the University’s 
investment 
portfolio 
must 
be 

diversified to best assist the 
University in its overall educational 
missions.

as a blog created by a delegation of 
University community members 
who attended COP15 in 2009. 
Today it reaches graduate students, 
professors and business people, 
among others who focus on different 
areas of study across the country. 
The organization continues to send 
a delegation, comprised of students 
and faculty, to the conference 
each year. The conference itself 
primarily consists of negotiations 
among parties and side events, 
which serve as platforms for 
“observer organizations” — like 
the Climate Blue delegation — who 
don’t speak in formal negotiations, 
according to the UNFCCC website. 
Side event participants can engage 
with parties and other attendees to 
network and share ideas.

Rackham student Matt Irish, 

who is studying for master’s degrees 
in Applied Climate Science and 
Electrical Engineering, attended 
this year’s conference as well as 
COP21. He explained at COP21 there 
was a lot of fanfare and excitement 
as national leaders came together to 
sign the Paris agreement; however, 
he said after the signing there was 
still work to be done.

“(During COP21), the leaders 

came the first week actually to kind 
of say, ‘Hey, we’re here signing off 
on it, now make it happen,’” he said. 
“There was some real stuff that 
needed to get done but because they 
had that sort of front-loaded thing, 
the idea was that those national 
leaders put their name on it and they 

had it done … since we just really 
wanted to agree, that was mainly 
all that happened. There were some 
really important parts of the text 
that were extremely vague that 
were left to be figured out later. This 
year was when that actually had to 
happen.”

This 
year 
at 
COP23, 

Irish 
explained, 
leaders 
and 

representatives were charged with 
“writing the rulebook” to implement 
what they agreed upon in Paris. He 
explained COP23 was an exciting 
opportunity to substantiate some 
of the more abstract concepts in the 
Paris agreement.

Pertinent to the conference, 

Irish explained, was whether the 
United States would be involved in 
certain parts at all, given Trump’s 
announcement.

“What I was most excited about, 

personally from this last week, was 
that it seems to me that … in the 
past it was everyone waiting — is 
the U.S. going to play? Is the U.S. 
in? The question was, what’s going 
to happen to the world if the U.S. 
is in or not?” he said. “And now, 
because the Paris agreement has 
been signed and we’re kind of past 
it, I feel like … the questions is more, 
what’s going to happen to the U.S. if 
the U.S. isn’t in?”

Rackham 
student 
Samantha 

Basile is a Ph.D. student in the 
Department of Climate and Space 
Sciences and Engineering. She is 
the director of the Climate Blue, and 
attended this year’s conference.

Basile explained the official 

United States delegation was really 
only present in name. She said the 
other nations had already agreed to 
work without them.

Basile herself spent a lot of time 

in negotiations, and said it was 
interesting to see how all of the 
nations’ voices come together to 
agree on certain steps that need to 
be taken. She said such agreements 
are sometimes taken for granted.

“We assume that things aren’t 

moving fast enough and we get very 
frustrated as students, especially 
because we see, we just have so 
much energy and we want things 
to move forward,” she said. “So it 
was a little frustrating to see things 
get kicked down the road, but at 
the same time, they’re keeping 
everyone on board and keeping 
everyone under a consensus vote 
system so it’s pretty amazing that 
they get anything done.”

Environment and Sustainability 

graduate student Chris Karounos 
is pursuing his master’s degree 
in 
Environmental 
Informatics 

and Conservation Ecology. He 
said going into the conference he 
underestimated the “goodwill” of 
everyone involved in negotiations.

“It seemed like everyone had 

their hearts in the right place and 
it really needed to be that way 
because you’re in a room of at least 
50 different upper-level delegates 
that were representing an entire 
country, and they all had to agree on 
something,” he said.

Karounos said it was rewarding 

to be a “fly on the wall” in the 
negotiation process.

“We’re really serving a purpose 

by being there as students,” he said. 
“(Initially), I thought it was kind of a 
fluff thing, but the U.N. really wants 
it to be a transparent process.”

Environment and Sustainability 

graduate 
student 
Tyler 
Fitch 

explained the dynamic among 
conference attendees operates much 
like a bureaucratic power structure. 
He said a lot of the negotiations are 
closed to non-party entities and he 
said most delegates tend to keep to 
themselves. However, he said there 
are a lot of open discussions fostered 
by the side events.

Some student delegations work 

directly with countries, taking notes 
for them and helping them navigate 
their 
schedules. 
The 
Climate 

Blue delegation, Basile explained, 
worked specifically with the United 
Nations Secretariat, which allowed 
them to interact with the formal 
process.

Rackham student Cesar Luis 

Barraza Botet, an international 
student 
from 
Colombia, 
said 

he approached the Colombian 
delegation.

Barraza Botet said the groups 

discussed specific topics or articles 
in the Paris Agreement in the 
plenary sessions. One article, he 
explained, discusses technology 
mechanisms, which requires the 
development of mitigation and 
adaptation technologies as well as 
the ability to transfer them from 
developed countries to developing 
countries. 

“It was amazing to me how they 

had to agree on every single word 
that was going into these rulebook 
documents,” he said.

In terms of side events, Rackham 

student Emily Gargulinski — who 
is pursuing a master’s degree in the 
Climate and Space Sciences and 
Engineering department — said 
they took place in what is called the 
Bonn Zone. The zone comprised 
country pavilions — spaces in which 

each country could exhibit their 
culture and display their climate 
change initiatives. The exhibitions 
comprised of small booths that 
displayed new technology and 
initiatives. There were also meeting 
rooms that held side events on 
topics such as nuclear power and 
sustainable cities.

One key component of the 

delegation’s COP experience is 
the Climate Blue blog. Through 
their blogs, members can reflect on 
conference highlights.

“We tried to set it up as a 

system where everyone could be 
involved, but hopefully wouldn’t 
be 
overwhelmed, 
because 
we 

knew the negotiations would be 
overwhelming in itself,” Basile 
said. “Everyone participated on 
the Twitter, on our social media, 
and then our requirement was 
either before, during or after COP, 
you would write one blog kind of 
reflecting on a certain topic. We 
didn’t want it to just be like a diary 
entry, we wanted it to have a little 
more of a perspective behind it.”

In his blog, Fitch discussed the 

We Are Still In movement, which 
comprises cities, companies and 
universities that support action to 
implement the Paris agreement 
despite Trump’s intent to withdraw. 
According to Fitch, there was 
a series of events related to this 
movement at the conference.

Additionally, in October, Climate 

Blue and Michigan and The Climate 
Crisis wrote a letter to University 
President Mark Schlissel asking 
him to sign the We Are Still In 
pledge on behalf of the University, 
which he did.

“I think the conference was sort 

of a, ‘What is the next step for We 
Are Still In?’ And frankly I don’t 
think they know yet, but the idea 
is that … the We Are Still In folks 
are going to keep abreast of these 
negotiations and continue to make 
climate action happen in the United 
States,” he said. “(The University 
of) Michigan is a part of that which 
means it’s all the more relevant for 
us.”

Irish 
explained 
though 
the 

United States government did not 
have a climate pavilion of its own at 
the conference this year, there was 
a We Are Still In pavilion area that 
became the United States’ de facto 
location and was bigger than past 
federal pavilions.

“The idea is just telling the rest of 

the world that we have federalism 
in the United States — the federal 
government doesn’t get to call the 
shots on everything so in a very real 
sense the U.S. is ‘still in,’” he said.

Noting that the United States 

plays a large role in mitigating 
climate 
change, 
Irish 
also 

explained the rest of the world 
has responsibilities as well. He 
explained the bottom-up approach 
to reducing emissions outlined in 
the Paris agreement, which allows 
each country to bring their own 
emission reduction proposal to 
the table, and to which all parties 
agreed.

“The good thing is it finally 

helped all the countries build trust 
together to actually want to do 
something and try to make this 
virtuous cycle, but the bad thing is 
there is absolutely no guarantee that 
we’re actually going to meet our 
goals,” he said.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, November 22, 2017 — 3A

RESPONSE
From Page 2A

CONFERENCE
From Page 1A

RESOLUTION
From Page 1A

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

the University’s decisions.

Schlissel 
outlined 

three 
components 
of 
his 

decision: The University can 
impose 
restrictions 
on 
the 

circumstances 
of 
the 
event 

based on the First Amendment, 
but not content; denying the 
request would attract more 
public attention to Spencer; and 
protecting free speech is key 
in maintaining a democratic 
society.

Schlissel 
and 
University 

spokespeople 
emphasized 

repeatedly student safety is the 
administrators’ priority. Close 
to 75 students at the meeting 
jeered the officials, holding up 
signs and yelling. 

Though the Board could not 

act in an official capacity on 
Schlissel’s action, many weighed 
in. University Regent Denise 

Ilitch (D) was the only regent to 
contend the president’s decision.

“Unfortunately, 
I 
do 
not 

agree with the University of 
Michigan 
administration,” 

she 
said. 
“While 
I 
am 
a 

staunch proponent of the First 
Amendment, and stand firmly 
in support of our constitution, 
I remain very concerned that it 
is unsafe to allow him to speak 
at the University of Michigan. 
Violence follows him wherever 
he goes.”

During 
public 
comments, 

every speaker — and many more 
students speaking out of turn 
during the meeting — argued 
Spencer’s appearance on campus 
is an inherent threat to safety.

Nursing 
graduate 
student 

Vidhya 
Aravind 
noted 
the 

proximity 
and 
strength 
of 

white supremacist groups near 
the University, saying an event 
with Spencer on campus would 
undoubtedly attract them.

“There’s 
nothing 
to 
be 

learned from his viewpoint, 
nor can we learn anything from 
challenging it,” she said. “This 
dehumanization validates and 
affirms the views of hate groups 
like Identity Evropa, who has 
a base of organization within 
a half hour of the University. 
Bringing him will embolden 
local white supremacists to 
continue to violent protesting, 
and will risk physical violence or 
murder.”

Rackham student Brittney 

Williams pointed out the ways in 
which Spencer’s views were an 
attack on her identity as a Black, 
bisexual woman — referencing 
his beliefs that Black people do 
not deserve to exist. Williams 
noted it was important for the 
Board to consider the gravity 
of allowing Spencer into a place 
many students considered their 
home.

REGENTS
From Page 1A

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com