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.”