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

