Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, January 18, 2018

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 

ASHLEY ZHANG
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

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

A

s 
my 
roommates 

finally 
began 
to 

settle on something 

to watch, I smiled. They had 
chosen one of my 
favorite movies of 
all time, Disney’s 
“Hercules”, and I 
would be able to 
hear it all in the 
background as I 
made 
dinner 
— 

or so I thought. 
Just as the title 
sequence 
began, 

one of them made 
an 
offhanded 

remark 
about 
the 
Muses, 

saying 
something 
along 

the lines of “Wow, I never 
realized when I was younger 
how offensive the portrayal 
of the Muses is!” The heated 
discussion 
that 
followed 

drowned out the vast majority 
of the movie after that.

For those of you with the rare 

misfortune of never having seen 
“Hercules”, the Muses are the 
five women who narrate the 
story. Throughout the movie, 
they add comedy and Motown-
inspired musical numbers. The 
central thesis of my roommates’ 
complaint was that the voices and 
songs they were hearing from 
these characters “sounded Black” 
and I was deeply confused by 
this. The problematic concept of 
“sounding Black” aside, why was 
that necessarily a bad thing, or 
offensive in any way? The voice 
actresses who played the Muses 
were Black, singing in a genre 
that belonged, for the most part, 
to African Americans. They are 
not being portrayed in any kind of 
negative light; they are talented, 
intelligent, confident and playful. 
So what exactly was the matter?

My 
roommates 
were 
right 

to be skeptical, given Disney’s 
track 
record 
of 
questionable 

representations of minority groups, 
from the crows in “Dumbo” to 
the Siamese Cats in “Lady and 

the Tramp” to the Merchant in 
“Aladdin.” What concerned me, 
though, was that the origin of 
their complaint was discomfort 

with Blackness. Without 
interrogating 
it 
or 

articulating their point 
further, they heard a 
stereotypically 
Black 

voice and jumped to the 
assumption that it was 
not okay.

It is easy enough, 

though, 
in 
the 

sociopolitical world of 
a campus liberal, to err 
on the side of caution 

and adopt these responses. That 
is, as a student on campus who is 
not a person of color or part of the 
LGBTQ community or belonging 
to a religious minority group, 
when one sees a questionable 
representation in the media, the 
primary goal is to find out what, 
if anything, is wrong with it. In 
most cases, the most “woke,” 
most culturally sensitive thing 
to do is identify it, immediately 
determine the degree of offense 
such a representation may have 
caused (on a sliding scale, usually, 
from “potentially problematic” 
to “downright racist”) and then 
share your judgement with those 
around you.

This cannot be a healthy 

mechanism. In fact, it is a 
Pavlovian shortcut that too many 
use as an excuse to not tackle 
more complex, serious questions 
about cultural appropriation and 
how underrepresented groups are 
portrayed in the media.

Watching 
“Hercules” 
with 

my roommates was far from my 
first experience like this. Several 
times I have been in a room of 
well-meaning, relatively “woke” 
liberal people where questions 
like that will come up and, more 
often than not, a room full of white 
people will end up walking away 
taking umbrage with a character, 
accent or representation that the 
affected group might not find 

offensive at all.

In a certain sense, this is 

progress 
and 
perhaps 
even 

something to be celebrated. This 
socioeconomic and demographic 
group is paying great attention, 
maybe for the first time ever, to 
these issues and thinking about 
whether or not they contribute to 
an inclusive, respectful society.

But isn’t this, on some level, 

the easy way out? Assuming 
that something is racist may be 
objectively a good bet and it may 
help someone feel more confident 
in their political leanings, but at 
the end of the day, it is far from the 
hard work of empathy and research 
that should be taking place. Doesn’t 
this sort of automatically generated 
response miss the point?

Existing 
in 
2018 
as 
an 

empathetic, progressive, “woke” 
person is, and should be, hard 
work. You should be able to 
look at your own responses and 
interrogate them. “Why did I 
notice 
this 
representation 
of 

Blackness? Is it because it made me 
slightly uncomfortable and I did 
not know how to react?” Or, “Does 
this 
character’s 
recognizably 

gay voice demean them in any 
way, does it reflect an unfair 
stereotype?” These are much more 
suitable, nuanced questions than 
the bottom-line “Is it offensive? If 
yes, how offensive?”

If you think you may be guilty 

of 
this 
Pavlovian 
progressive 

behavior, take a breath. You have 
the best of intentions, and that is 
a great place to begin. Next time 
you have one of these discussions, 
rather than passing judgement 
without a second thought and 
moving 
on, 
interrogate 
that 

instinct. See if you can complete 
the sentence “This is offensive 
because ______.” If you struggle to 
articulate the second part of that, 
chances are you are not as woke as 
you may have thought you were.

Pavlovian progressives

BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN

Brett Graham can be reached at 

btgraham@umich.edu.

I

n the wake of President 
Donald 
Trump 
calling 

Haiti, 
El 
Salvador 
and 

nations 
in 
Africa 
“shithole 

countries” 
when 
discussing 

immigration 
policy, 
people 

from these countries have 
been 
extolled 
by 
figures 

in the media as having an 
unparalleled 
resiliency, 

especially 
compared 
to 
a 

president who has never had 
to make a serious effort at 
achieving anything.

These 
comments 
are 

warranted 
considering 

how 
the 
Haitian 
people 

have not only faced endless 
tribulations, but have been 
held as poverty porn and 
perpetuated as an immutably 
destitute nation by all sides of 
the media. Anderson Cooper 
became 
visibly 
emotional 

when describing the island 
nation 
on 
CNN, 
exalting 

their 
vibrant 
culture 
and 

incontrovertible 
sense 
of 

strength and pride.

Members 
of 
several 
of 

these nations, including Haiti, 
responded 
by 
denouncing 

Trump’s 
comments 
as 

“abhorrent 
and 
obnoxious 

remarks.” 
The 
Senegalese 

president tweeted “Africa and 
the black race deserve the 
respect and consideration of all,” 
an innocuous request yet likely 
impossible for the repugnantly 
disrespectful Trump.

However, the disheartening 

aspect of this (aside from the 
reaffirmation that a blatantly 
racist man holds our highest 
office) is that we have come 
to a moment where we must 
exalt the values of citizens of 
different countries in response 
to racism within our nation’s 
highest office.

This 
is 
something 
that 

Americans of all stripes have 
had to confront daily, whether 
it be the xenophobic comments 
from our commander-in-chief 
or the Justice Department’s 
intent to deport hundreds of 
thousands of children who’ve 
lived in the United States 
under DACA. It would be 
comforting to imagine that 
on campus, we don’t have to 

support someone’s right to 
live, and to breathe and exist 
peacefully without someone 
threatening 
this 
ostensibly 

inalienable right.

This 
also 
has 
impacted 

campus 
as 
the 
University 

of 
Michigan 
indicates 
a 

willingness 
to 
provide 
a 

platform for white supremacist 
Richard Spencer to speak, 
suggesting that our supposedly 
safe 
campus 
is 
instead 

becoming a symposium for 
this same kind of existential 
deliberation. The University’s 
decision to offer dates for 
Spencer 
to 
visit 
campus 

undermines their once pro-
student stance that serves 
minorities and marginalized 
groups. To avoid the risk of 
a lawsuit, they instead have 
chosen to let students ruminate 
over 
whether 
or 
not 
the 

larger Michigan community 
respects their rights with a 
haphazardly contrite message 
from 
University 
President 

Mark Schlissel.

This seems discordant with 

a University that has disputed 
the policies of the Trump 
administration by promoting 
the safety of undocumented 
students. Why would Schlissel 
seem invested in the protection 
of 
marginalized 
students 

on one issue, yet apparently 
unconcerned by another?

Classrooms have swelled 

up with questions of safety. 
Last 
semester, 
in 
several 

of my discussions, Jewish 
students and students of color 
collectively 
discussed 
not 

just whether or not Spencer 
should march onto campus 
but 
also 
how 
they 
don’t 

deserve the emotional and 
likely physical stress that will 
accompany an appearance by 
the bigoted nationalist.

Questions 
of 
whether 

Spencer’s 
appearance 

would 
turn 
into 
another 

Charlottesville 
became 

central to the discussion. This 
conjured harrowing images of 
tiki torches and anti-Semitic 
or racial slurs polluting the air 
of Ann Arbor; in this dystopian 
scene, 
the 
Diag 
suddenly 

morphs into a platform for 
Nazis and white supremacists 
to 
intimidate 
and 
aggress 

students of color and the 
Jewish community.

The most prominent aspect 

of the argument became less 
of a point of debate and more 
of a plea: to recognize the fear 
these groups shared if swaths 
of racist, torch-holding white 
supremacists 
arose 
when 

Spencer visits campus.

Why are students having to 

justify their existence to the 
University? This is the point 
we’ve reached on this campus, 
with students postulating the 
damage and violence they 
may 
face 
should 
Spencer 

arrive. Furthermore, racist 
demonstrations and acts have 
shown to have increasingly 
negative effects on mental 
health, 
with 
communities 

of 
color 
reporting 
higher 

rates 
of 
depression 
and 

suicide 
because 
of 
these 

aggressions. Must we even 
bring these statistics into the 
conversation to justify why 
students are concerned?

This unsettling argument 

feels akin to people defending 
the lives of Haitians when 
Trump conflates the identity 
of their country with a latrine.

These watershed moments 

feel indicative of the values 
we will continue to hold, like 
a fork in the road. Racism so 
apparent confronts us, and to 
fight back we must rationalize 
why people aren’t “shitholes” 
and why all humans, whether 
on our campus or having 
emigrated 
to 
our 
country, 

deserve equal chances.

Individuals 
of 
all 
races 

should not be forced to justify 
their right to live by defending 
their character. Yet in this 
country, much like at this 
University, we have been forced 
to wrestle with our officials 
and administration just to 
justify a right of existence. 
And that is a depressing sign 
of where we have gone and are 
continuing to go. 

The justification of the right to exist

JOEL DANILEWITZ | COLUMN

Joel Danilewitz can be reached at 

joeldan@umich.edu.

E

arlier this month, H&M 
sparked 
outrage 
when 

an image appeared on its 

online store featuring a Black child 
modeling a sweatshirt that read 
“coolest monkey in the jungle.” 
Two white child models were 
featured on the site also wearing 
jungle-themed 
sweatshirts, 

but their sweatshirts did not 
reference monkeys. The retailer 
quickly removed the image, said 
it would pull the sweatshirt from 
its stores and posted an online 
apology stating, “Our product 
and promotion were not intended 
to cause offence but, as a global 
brand, we have a responsibility 
to be aware of and attuned to all 
racial and cultural sensitivities — 
and we have not lived up to this 
responsibility this time.”

However, it was too late. The 

damage had been done. Musical 
artist The Weeknd and rapper 
G-Eazy announced they would 
no 
longer 
be 
working 
with 

H&M. 
LeBron 
James 
posted 

an Instagram photo expressing 
his disdain for the ad. Shortly 
thereafter, members of the South 
African political party Economic 
Freedom Fighters protested at 
several H&M stores, marching 
through stores, breaking mirrors, 
knocking over mannequins and 
racks and throwing clothes around. 
When H&M subsequently closed 
several locations for safety reasons, 
Floyd 
Shivambu, 
the 
deputy 

president of the EFF, tweeted, “All 
the stores of that racist retailer 
@hmsouthafrica are CLOSED. 
Racism must fall and we will never 
tip toe around racists.”

When friends and I discussed 

the 
protests, 
our 
unanimous 

response was they were ridiculous. 
We agreed we loved that overt 
racism is no longer profitable, 
that it’s unacceptable to use racial 
slurs and that if you do, whether 
or not it was intentional, people 
respond negatively. But we said 
that if people think for a second 
that H&M created that sweatshirt 
to promote racism, they don’t 
understand a thing about how 
business works. H&M exists solely 
to make money, not to promote 
any political agenda. Even if every 
single executive at H&M was racist, 
they still wouldn’t intentionally 
put a racist slogan on a sweatshirt 
because they know they wouldn’t 

make money off of it. H&M just 
wants to make money. The slogan 
was clearly an oversight.

However, what we neglected to 

acknowledge was how absurd it 
is that H&M is in a position that 
allows such an oversight to be 
possible. Yes, the EFF protests 
were 
extreme 
and 
arguably 

counterintuitive. But today I 
would tell business executives 
the same thing I tell my 12-year-
old campers: “You can’t control 
how people treat you, but you 
can control how you respond 
to it.” Maybe knocking down 
racks of clothing was an unduly 
destructive response to a slogan 
on a sweatshirt, but you can’t 
control if people protest your 
mistake. What you can control, 
however, is how much effort you 

put toward ensuring you never 
again make a mistake people deem 
worthy of protesting.

I assume the people involved 

with the photo did not consider its 
racial implications when making 
their decisions — if they did, then 
we’re facing a different problem 
because the people at H&M aren’t 
just racist, they are ignorant. More 
than likely, though, this photo 
passed through a whole team of 
professionals who didn’t have the 
life experiences to lead them to 
think twice about the way it may 
be perceived. So many people have 
been the victim of racial slurs; if 
just one of them had been on the 
team that created this photo, and 
had been in a position where they 
felt that their perspective was 
valued, the photo would have been 
reconsidered and H&M wouldn’t 
be facing the biggest marketing 
disaster of its existence.

In case you were wondering, 

H&M’s board of directors is all 
white. Its CEO and CFO are both 
white. Its auditing committee is 

all white. I don’t know exactly 
who was on the team that created 
this photo, but H&M is a global 
brand with locations in Africa, 
the Middle East, Oceania, Europe, 
Asia and the Americas. And yet 
you would be hard-pressed to find 
a high-level employee of any race 
besides white.

McKinsey’s 
2015 
report 

titled “Why diversity matters” 
explains, “Companies in the top 
quartile for racial and ethnic 
diversity are 35 percent more 
likely to have financial returns 
above their respective national 
industry medians.”

“Companies in the bottom 

quartile both for gender and for 
ethnicity and race are statistically 
less likely to achieve above-
average financial returns than 
the average companies in the 
data set (that is, bottom-quartile 
companies are lagging rather than 
merely not leading),” it states.

This is why diversity matters. 

It is the same reason we need 
a more diverse student body at 
the University of Michigan, the 
same reason we need to ensure 
America’s youth are presented 
with equal opportunities. We 
will likely never reach a point 
in our nation where all citizens 
champion 
diversity 
simply 

because it’s the right thing to 
do. When our institutions and 
businesses are diverse, they are 
better equipped to meet the needs 
of a wide variety of cultures and 
individuals. But regardless of 
whether people recognize the 
innate value of diversity, nobody 
can deny the free market is a 
microcosm of the culture, and the 
culture right now is a culture of 
social justice.

Racism, whether unintentional 

or intentional, violent or seemingly 
harmless, is no longer profitable. 
If you do appear racist, then the 
markets are going to respond 
negatively. If you want to succeed 
as a business, then you can either 
hope and pray your homogenous 
staff doesn’t make some critical 
oversight like H&M did, or you 
can create a diverse workplace 
environment that reflects the 
company’s consumer base.

H&M needs diversity

HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN

Hannah Harshe can be reached at 

hharshe@umich.edu.

HANNAH MYERS | CONTACT HANNAH AT HSMYERS@UMICH.EDU

BRETT 

GRAHAM

“Racism, whether 

unintentional 
or intentional, 

violent or 
seemingly 

harmless, is no 

longer profitable.”

