I
n four years here, I have
never really played the
role of outspoken critic
as it pertains to University
administration. That
is, though I may have
strongly
disagreed
with any number of
decisions made by
University President
Mark
Schlissel
and the Board of
Regents,
I
never
truly
questioned
the fact that they
were
responsible,
thoughtful
public
servants who had the best
interests
of
the
University
community at heart. I trusted
that they were doing their best.
Last Monday, that changed
with an email.
President
Schlissel’s
announcement of his decision
to “begin discussions with
(white supremacist) Richard
Spencer’s group” about coming
to
campus
was
indicative
not only of abject cowardice,
but a fundamental lack of
understanding and a consistent
disregard for the wishes of the
student body.
Perhaps the first question
to be asked is why send out
such an important email on
the Tuesday evening before
Thanksgiving break? Well, it’d
be just about the same answer
as why they tend to raise tuition
over summer break or why
the Federal Communications
Commission released a plan to
pull the rug on net neutrality
so quickly, so quietly, on the
same day — because winning
an argument is a whole lot
easier when the opposition is
out of town, or at the very least
not looking. Our University
administration, comprised of
people who at least nominally
work day in and day out for
our education and well-being,
is hiding from us. People don’t
hide when they’re proud of the
decisions they’ve made.
Some credit, though, has
to be given to the Board of
Regents
in
this
instance.
They, at the very least, had
the courage to turn a blind
eye to the concerns of the
student
body
in
person,
during an emergency meeting
called that evening. Bravo. Of
the eight, only one, Denise
Ilitch (D), had the decency to
challenge the decision.
That
Richard
Spencer’s
filth has no place within a
hundred miles of this campus
is indisputable. He is a racist,
anti-Semitic, despicable excuse
for a human being, a troll whose
fame is owed to failed attempts
to speak on college campuses
like our own, each one further
endearing him to a fan base of
white supremacists, neo-Nazis
and Ku Klux Klan members.
Still, President Schlissel has
made three arguments to justify
his
decision,
each
more misguided than
the last.
There’s
the
argument
that
“denying the request
would provide even
more
attention
to
the speaker and his
cause
and
allow
him to claim a court
victory.” Two things,
however, need to be
recognized here. One, not all
attention is good attention. A
story about his request being
denied starts a debate, while a
story about his request being
accepted starts a riot. Two,
Spencer’s suit against the Ohio
State University, when they
refused his request to speak
last month, is still pending
and is by no means a definite
win. Even if it is, there’s merit
in taking a stand in court on
behalf of your student body.
Former University President
Lee Bollinger did so in two
2003 cases to defend the
University’s affirmative action
policies and won one.
Go
to
court,
President
Schlissel. Demonstrate that
the only way Spencer should
ever be welcomed on this
campus is because a court of
law is compelling us to do so
and not because the University
administration
is
unwilling
to stand up for our values in
court. I’m sure the Bursar’s
Office can find enough to
cover the legal fees after all the
tuition hikes carried out since
I started here.
Then, there’s the assumption
that “we must allow” all speech
to
protect
our
democratic
society.
First
Amendment
absolutists
will
point
to
Supreme
Court
cases
that
have affirmed the right to
hate speech, but these cases
have dealt with public spaces;
on college campuses, the law
is still in a gray area. Spencer
isn’t organizing a march down
Main Street or across the Diag,
he’s submitting an application
to the University. Therefore,
the University has a right to
scrutinize how its space is
used, based on (1) whether or
not a potential speaker could
present a new and valuable
perspective and (2) whether or
not that perspective will cause
harm, mental or otherwise, to
its student body.
If I were to submit a request
to use Hill Auditorium for
a
three-hour
lecture
on
everything wrong with the
New
York
Mets
bullpen,
would anyone question the
University’s ability to deny that
request without infringing on
my rights? Of course not; I’m
not an expert on anything and
that doesn’t offer anything of
real value to this campus. No
one could stop me from giving
the same lecture, though, in the
middle of the Diag. Spencer’s
case is no different. He’s not
an expert in any field, nor is he
an authority on anything. Calls
for “ethnic cleansing,” chants
of “blood and soil” and claims
that Hispanic and Black people
are genetically inferior are
neither new nor valuable.
To
qualify
these
ideas
as
reasonable
perspectives
different from our own is
to elevate them. When the
administration makes space on
campus for them, it is a clear
signal to minority populations
on campus that those ideas
have merit. So now these two
rights have come into conflict.
Personally, I’d bet on the side
with the law school ranked
eighth in the country to put up
a decent fight.
Finally, there’s Schlissel’s
“foremost priority,” the safety
and
security
of
those
on
campus. The simple fact of the
matter is that where Richard
Spencer goes, violence has
consistently followed, and his
presence will act as a magnet
to hate groups across the
Midwest. Neo-Nazis and Klan
members will be in the Diag.
In this case, safety has to mean
more than physical well-being;
students of color or of Jewish
faith cannot be expected to
simply “ignore him” or revel
in the “power of a room mostly
empty,” without suffering in
terms of mental health. If I
need to further explain why
it would be difficult for one of
these students to feel welcome
and safe while walking to class
under
these
circumstances,
you need to reexamine your
capacity for empathy.
Schlissel’s
arguments
are
insufficient. The way in which
they
were
presented
was
cowardly. This administration
is shrinking away from a fight
and ignoring the students they
purport to care about. Richard
Spencer is on his way to campus.
His lawyer said “Hail to the
Victors!” to a reporter. That
should make everyone on this
campus sick to their stomach.
I cannot remember being
any less proud to be a Michigan
Wolverine. There’s more to be
said on this, and from more
diverse voices than my own.
But for now, we need to call out
Schlissel’s email for what it is:
a disgrace.
O
n Nov. 8, the Michigan
State
Senate
passed
Senate
Bills
584
through 586, which will allow
gun owners to conceal carry
firearms in schools, daycares,
churches and other gun-free
zones. The vote was split
almost completely on party
lines
—
state
Sen.
Marty
Knollenburg, R-Troy, was the
only Republican to vote “no” on
these bills. With gun violence
dominating the news cycle,
this is especially frightening.
By
passing
these
bills,
Michigan Senate Republicans
have clearly shown that they
don’t care about the safety of
their constituents.
While the bills will not affect
the University of Michigan’s
campus, as the University is
considered autonomous by the
Michigan
Constitution,
off-
campus gun-free zones will
be affected. Public libraries,
churches and bars are all
fair game. As a student, this
terrifies me.
Becoming a victim of gun
violence is extremely unlikely
— only 31 out of every 1 million
Americans will become victims
of gun homicides. However,
with news on gun violence
constantly on the television
or online, it is something I
fear. If gun owners would be
allowed to carry concealed
weapons in gun-free zones, I
would constantly be worried
about my safety, which would
be emotionally draining. I am
confident that many of my peers
feel similarly.
While I am worried for my
own safety, I am more worried
about the safety of my loved
ones, who are at a greater risk
of becoming a victim of these
bills because they do not attend
a public university. As students
at this University, we should be
doing everything in our power
to protect our loved ones from
these bills. The Republicans
in the Michigan Senate need
to recognize the frightening
climate these bills create.
Three
hundred
twenty-
three
mass
shootings
had
occurred by Nov. 18, the 322nd
day of 2017 — more than one
every single day. The United
States is the only country in
the world with this type of gun
violence. Eighty-nine out of 100
Americans own a firearm. As a
result, the U.S. sees more gun
violence than other countries.
According to a CNN report,
though the U.S. consists of
only 5 percent of the world’s
population, 31 percent of the
world’s mass shooters are in
the U.S. Gun homicide rates
are over 25 times higher in
the U.S. than they are in other
high-income countries. These
statistics make it clear to me
that the Michigan Legislature
needs to pass laws that restrict
where one can carry firearms,
not expand where one can
carry them. My fear is that
this bill will further normalize
guns, and some individuals
will use these laws to victimize
more people.
Often, gun advocates argue
that a “good guy with a gun” is
needed to stop these episodes of
gun violence. A “good guy with
a gun” generally refers to an
armed civilian who could use
his gun on an active shooter in
an event of gun violence. State
Senate Majority Leader Arlan
Meekhof, R-West Olive, backed
up his dangerous bill with this
childish
argument.
Studies
have shown that the “good guy
with a gun” is rarely successful
in stopping an active shooter. A
2013 FBI study found that only
3.1 percent of active shooter
incidents were stopped by an
armed individual who was not a
member of law enforcement.
An
EPIC-MRA
poll
in
2015 showed that 57 percent
of
Michiganders
oppose
concealed carry in schools.
Additionally, 53 percent of
Michiganders are supportive of
a complete prohibition of guns
in schools. Despite popular
opinion, Senate Republicans
chose to pass this dangerous
bill, indicating to me that
perhaps they are not fit for
their jobs as representatives.
When the Michigan Senate
chose to pass these bills, they
told us they do not care about
the over 14,000 people who
have died due to gun violence
this year. They told us they do
not care that we have a mass
shooting every day in the
U.S. Every Republican who
has chosen the vote for SB
584-586 does not deserve the
office they hold because they
refuse to listen to the majority
of
Michiganders
and
have
decided not to care about the
safety of their constituents.
These bills still need to be
voted on by the Michigan
House of Representatives and
signed into law by Governor
Snyder. I urge the Michigan
House of Representatives and
Governor Snyder to stop this
bill from becoming law.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 27, 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
MI Senate doesn’t care about safety
EMILY HUHMAN | COLUMN
Admin’s cowardly response to Spencer
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
Due process under #MeToo
LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN
H
istorically,
men
have
used the high burden
of evidence as a way to
lock out any and all
accusations of sexual
assault or harassment
in the workplace. This
barrier
prevented
women from making
their claims in courts,
human
resources
departments
or
casually
with
their
male
friends.
From
what I’ve observed,
the
power
of
the
#MeToo campaign has spawned a
larger trend of calling out specific
men in power. This has, in large
part, gained its strength from
minimizing the importance of
evidence and encouraging the
public to believe victims’ stories
at face value. While this system
has undoubtedly given women
the justice they would have been
denied in the past, it seems our
fervor to correct this past injustice
has blinded us from protecting a
vital aspect of our justice system.
Due process isn’t just practiced
in a courtroom — it is a cultural
legacy of our democracy which has
penetrated all aspects of American
life. To seemingly do away with
this democratic tradition would
tarnish the efficacy of the current
social movement of accusing the
powerful. We shouldn’t let the
movement’s current success in
toppling the systematic cover-
ups of harassment to begin to
degrade the ideals of due process
in the long run.
Sexual
assault
and/or
harassment
is
a
notoriously
difficult crime to prosecute, since
many
victims
feel
extremely
uncomfortable
reporting
it,
gathering evidence is difficult and
the worries of being stigmatized
by society have suppressed victims’
ability to report the crimes. The
recent celebrity accusations have
unequivocally
weakened
these
barriers for countless victims,
giving them strength in numbers
and support from a renewed spirit
for justice in the media, college
campuses and businesses. It used
to take months for companies
to discipline a man in a position
of power, yet over the past few
weeks we’ve seen countless being
suspended or resigning within
days, even hours of their accusers
coming forward.
In many respects, this sounds
great. The movement has been
flushing out many men who have
been lurking behind the cover
of evidence and status to protect
themselves. However, the rapidity
at which this movement has been
removing the accused from their
jobs should sound some alarm
bells in that it’s almost certainly
giving
leeway
for
some to falsely accuse
innocent men and deny
them sufficient time to
launch counterclaims
before
having
their
careers destroyed by
accusations.
It may be difficult
to care about this
issue in light of the
many women who are
getting the justice they
deserve in today’s atmosphere,
but it must be considered if the
movement wishes to achieve a
legacy of fairness. Currently, many
figures within Hollywood and
politics have likened it to a witch
hunt or a new ‘terror’ similar to
that of Robespierre’s frenzied
attack on his political opponents in
the French Revolution.
These critiques have a point,
and considering their objections
make for good evidence that the
movement has been eroding a sense
of fairness and justice in a general
sense, even if it is rewarding those
feelings for many victims. Michèle
Burke, who has won two Oscars,
expressed her suspicion of the
rapidity of these accusations.
“It’s really great that people
are speaking up. But it’s like
medieval times, dragging people
out and throwing rotten fruit.
There has to be some due process
also,” Burke said.
Kristie
Allie,
an
actress,
tweeted, “innocent until proven
guilty is a fairly sane concept that
I’m pretty sure each of us would
like to be afforded.” Clearly, many
in Hollywood are afraid of a media
that has replaced due process with
conviction by Twitter.
Of the men who have been
accused by the movement, many
have confessed and launched a
series of responses apologizing
or attempting to explain their
actions. Clearly, these men should
be considered guilty; they are
confessing, after all. Yet there
is also a substantial number of
men who have been consistently
denying the accusations coming
forward. Robert Herjavec, Shark
Tank investor, claims his wife has
fabricated a series of lies to extort
him for millions. His lawyer’s
statement that “Mr. Herjavec’s
character has always been one of
respect and it is undeniable that
his actions have always reflected
that” should not be immediately
discounted by activists.
Charlie Elphicke, a member of
the United Kingdom parliament,
said in a highly charged speech
to
party
members
that
the
government’s
immediate
firing
of the accused was “a mess” and
“a denial of justice when people
who have had allegations made
against them, lose their job or their
party whip without knowing what
those allegations are.” Elphicke’s
comments came in light of recent
speculation about how the public
shaming and lack of evidence
toward another MP may have
contributed to his suicide days
after being accused.
It is worrisome that some
prominent feminists have equated
accusation with proof. A day after
allegations broke about Roy Moore,
the Guardian columnist Jessica
Valenti attacked Mitch McConnell
for waiting to condemn him until
some evidence was presented,
writing “(he) didn’t elaborate on
why multiple women going on
the record wasn’t proof enough of
the truth.” Though it has become
clearer in the following weeks
that Moore’s case is a guilty one,
Valenti’s
rushed
statement
is
exactly the strain of thought that
is substantiating the witch hunt
argument — yes, multiple women
coming forward is certainly
more believable than one, but it
doesn’t completely eliminate the
right of the accused to press a
defending argument.
In an ideal world, there would
first be accusations, followed by a
period of silence from the media
as legal and private investigations
determine the facts of the case,
and when the claims are either
substantiated or falsified, reaction
from businesses and the media
should follow. This would also
put an end to the craziness of
Hollywood studios prematurely
cancelling dozens of productions,
which
unjustly
punishes
the
hundreds of staffers who have
worked hard to create them due to
the alleged actions of a single man
connected to the show.
Since we don’t live in an ideal
world, and many women would be
denied justice by the heavy burden
of proof during the investigative
phase, it is hard to prescribe a
solution. What is needed as the
movement
continues
forward,
however, is a more case-by-case
judgment of the accused, and
not simply defaulting to public
shaming hours after an accusation.
Hopefully this will bring some
sense of justice to all sides of the
equation — the victims and the
falsely accused — and preserve a
general sense of fairness that is
afforded to all of us.
Emily Huhman can be reached at
huhmanem@umich.edu.
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
Brett Graham can be reached at
btgraham@umich.edu.
Luke Jacobs can be reached at
lejacobs@umich.edu.
BRETT
GRAHAM
ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU
LUKE
JACOBS