I

t has been a few months 
since the initial Twitter 
storm of #metoo, but 

women aren’t done 
speaking out. Recent 
allegations 
have 

been brought against 
Aziz Ansari, James 
Franco and others. 
Art 
museums 
are 

grappling with how 
to treat artwork by 
artists 
accused 
of 

sexual assault, which 
was discussed by The 
New York Times in 
an article about artist Chuck 
Close. (Regarding separating 
the art from the artist, a 
column in The Michigan Daily 
by Sophia Kaufman addresses 
the issue excellently).

The movement has been 

likened to a witch hunt more 
than once. Maybe it seems 
like a witch hunt because 
many 
famous, 
well-known 

men are suddenly being held 
accountable for actions that 
had previously been protected 
by a status quo; maybe it feels 
this way because far more 
people than we expected have 
been exposed. Despite years 
of discomfort and whispered 
stories about dangerous men 
with the power to exploit, it 
still comes as a shock to some 
just how prevalent this issue 
is. The number of people 
finally 
being 
called 
out 

isn’t an indication that the 
movement has gone too far — 
it means that the movement 
was (and continues to be) 
incredibly necessary.

Beyond this, there’s more to 

why “witch hunt” is such an 
inappropriate phrase. Pacific 
Standard published an article 
breaking 
down 
why 
the 

movement isn’t a witch hunt. 
Specifically, the writer talked 
about how witch hunts are, 
historically, the oppression 
or exploitation of vulnerable 
minority populations by the 
powerful. That’s not what’s 
happening here. The men in 
question are not a minority 
group; they are not being 
systematically oppressed or 
prejudiced.

NBC News published an 

article about the struggles 

of the #metoo movement in 
France. A man quoted in the 
article discussed how he felt 

he wasn’t able to 
look at or speak to 
women 
anymore 

for 
fear 
of 

crossing the line 
between seduction 
and 
sexual 

harassment. 
If 

you’re able to look 
at this movement 
and see only your 
own 
concerns 

about being able 

to flirt with strangers, you’ve 
been lucky enough to live in a 
place of privilege.

I’ve seen from multiple 

Twitter accounts, articles, 
comments on social media, 
etc., people sharing their 
confusion about supposedly 
blurry lines. “Are we even 
allowed to talk to women 
anymore?” they ask.

If you have to ask that 

question, 
the 
answer 
is 

no. 
If 
your 
manner 
of 

approaching 
unfamiliar 

women or speaking to female 
colleagues is such that you 
think someone might call it 
harassment, that’s on you. 
That’s not a result of people 
being overly sensitive — it’s 
an issue that you should’ve 
corrected long ago.

I know plenty of people 

— men and women — who 
have been able to grapple 
with 
the 
movement, 
with 

the outpouring of pain, with 
the testimonies of survivors, 
without worrying about the 
hardships that being held 
to higher standards might 
entail. I’ve had innumerable 
conversations that never even 
got close to asking, “But how 

will this make my life harder?”

This is a long overdue 

reckoning. For each man who 
has fallen from grace (see 
Harvey 
Weinstein, 
Kevin 

Spacey, Louis CK—the list 
goes on) there are numerous 
victims who suffered. They 
were taken advantage of by 
those who had the ability 
to destroy their careers and 
publicly 
humiliate 
them. 

And while there might be 
some kind of spectrum of 
aggressions, 
that 
doesn’t 

change that each experience 
is painful and traumatizing. 
We shouldn’t approach change 
slowly. It’s not enough to go 
after only the most heinous of 
abuses and shrug our shoulders 
at 
workplace 
harassment. 

Every 
act 
of 
oppression 

perpetrated must be held as 
unequivocally impermissible. 

Of course the conversations 

around 
these 
topics 
are 

tense — grappling with our 
ideas of consent and assault 
is tricky. Being forced to 
reflect on our past behavior 
can be uncomfortable. While 
it’s 
the 
responsibility 
of 

individuals to be accountable 
for their actions, there’s no 
questioning that society has 
conditioned men and women 
to approach sexuality and 
relationships 
in 
different 

ways. But discomfort doesn’t 
mean that we shouldn’t have 
the 
conversations. 
Going 

through 
the 
process 
of 

reconsidering and relearning 
what is acceptable behavior is 
not too great a price to pay.

Powerful 
individuals 

having to face consequences 
is an important step forward. 
But 
the 
movement 
isn’t 

over. As long as people are 
resisting the breakdown of 
these 
misogynistic 
norms, 

there is more work to be done. 
The answer is not to run from 
the problem for fear of what 
confronting it will reveal. We 
owe it to every person who 
has been exploited, harassed, 
oppressed or any number 
of other verbs to work for 
change together.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, February 2, 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

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

 
 
 
 

Lucas Maiman
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
 Ashley Zhang

Ellery Rosenzweig

Elena Hubbell

O

ver the past few years, 
the 
NFL 
has 
faced 

increasing 
scrutiny 

for 
its 
growing 

concussion epidemic 
and 
domestic 

violence issues, both 
serving as evidence in 
the narrative that the 
NFL is a destructive 
professional 
sports 

league.

But the NFL did 

not 
always 
have 

this reputation.

In 2001, Vince 

McMahon created the XFL 
as 
a 
hard-hitting, 
working 

man’s alternative to the NFL, 
which he saw as “a league for 
pantywaists and sissies.” 

The 
following 
year, 

Neuropathologist 
Bennet 

Omalu 
revealed 
the 

groundbreaking 
discovery 

of 
chronic 
traumatic 

encephalopathy in former NFL 
player Mike Webster’s brain. 
 

Meanwhile, the XFL sought to 
captivate fans with a rhetoric 
of violence, sex and danger 
that the NFL seemingly did 
not possess, at least not to the 
extent desired by McMahon.

Despite positive ratings in 

its first week, support for the 
league fell as sloppy football 
and unskilled players detracted 
from its initial appeal, and it 
ultimately lost an estimated 
$70 million. Now, with the NFL 
falling 17 percent in TV ratings 
over the past two seasons, 
McMahon has announced the 
return of the XFL for 2020, 
albeit with drastically different 
rules and principles.

In addition to the removal 

of 
scandalous 
cheerleaders 

and 
inauthentic 
gameplay, 

McMahon 
has 
proposed 
a 

new rule that I argue will 
undoubtedly provoke the most 
controversy — banning XFL 
players from protesting or 
kneeling during the national 
anthem. Though the NFL has 

taken steps in its progress 
because of its growing public 
perception as dangerous, it 

has proven to be an 
arena for political 
protest and freedom 
of 
expression. 
By 

taking away the right 
of players to protest, 
the XFL will detract 
from the progress 
made by the NFL in 
pushing for social 
equality — and in 
doing so will fail to 
achieve the level of 

success at which McMahon is 
aiming.

McMahon’s newly proposed 

XFL is largely a manifestation 
of 
conservative 
American 

values. In addition to banning 
player protests, McMahon has 
stated that no former criminals 
will be allowed to participate 
in the league.

In 
response 
to 
these 

new rules, reporters asked 
McMahon 
whether 
or 
not 

former 
NFL 
quarterback 

Tim Tebow would be a good 
fit for the league, to which 
McMahon replied, “he could 
very well play.” Tebow, who 
became famous for his extreme 
expressions of religious faith 
both on and off the field, 
epitomizes the type of player 
McMahon wants in the XFL — a 
clean-cut, white Christian male 
with respect for traditional 
American values of patriotism 
and law and order.

However, 
the 
NFL 
has 

departed from the narrow-
minded 
values 
praised 

by 
McMahon 
and 
Tebow, 

exemplified by quarterback 
Colin 
Kaepernick 
being 

announced as a runner-up 
for the 2017 TIME Magazine 
Person of the Year for his 
efforts 
in 
protesting 
the 

national 
anthem 
and 
the 

system of racial inequality for 
which the flag stands.

Since Kaepernick began his 

public protests, he has faced 
his fair share of criticism, 
especially 
from 
President 

Donald Trump, who declared 
he wanted to “Get that son of 
a bitch off the field right now.” 
Unsurprisingly, the president 
and the founder of the XFL 
have a shared WWE history, 
with Trump making several 
appearances on the wrestling 
show and at one point acting in 
a stunt and at another shaving 
McMahon’s head.

Though McMahon recently 

stated he has not spoken with 
Trump at all with regard to 
the new XFL rules, it would be 
naive to ignore the connection 
between the two powerful men 
and the resulting similarities in 
their values — an appreciation 
for all things American and 
a strong distaste for those 
perceived as a threat to the 
existing structure of white 
male authority, especially in the 
realm of athlete protests.

So, as the political climate of 

the NFL has gravitated more 
toward progressive attempts 
at dismantling racial prejudice 
and inequality, the XFL is 
taking a large step back by 
banning the ability for players 
to protest the national anthem. 
Aligning with the ideology of 
Trump, McMahon is putting 
himself in a group categorized 
by 
racism 
and 
closed-

mindedness, and is certainly in 
no better of a position than he 
was circa 2001.

Ultimately, 
in 
trying 
to 

advertise the new XFL as a 
modern 
alternative 
to 
the 

dying 
NFL, 
McMahon 
is 

neglecting the positive strides 
professional football players 
have 
made 
toward 
social 

equality — and it won’t be long 
before football fans across the 
country realize what values the 
XFL truly stands for.

The XFL will not succeed

BEN CHARLSON | COLUMN

Why we keep saying #MeToo

DANIELLE COLBURN| COLUMN

Danielle Colburn can be reached at 

decol@umich.edu

Ben Charlson can be reached at 

bencharl@umich.edu.

DANIELLE 
COLBURN

Every act of 
oppression 
perpertrated 

must be held as 
unequivocally 
impermissible. 

BEN 

CHARLSON

FROM THE DAILY

L

ast week, University of Michigan’s Central Student Government 
unveiled the latest in a series of controversial proposals this school 
year. Their Campus Affordability Guide sparked a fierce backlash from 

students for providing advice that was deeply irresponsible, negligent and out 
of touch. The guide, which has since been taken down and is in the process 
of being remade, reveals the larger problem within CSG: the lack of true 
representation of the student body.

The 
Affordability 
Guide 

had the purpose of supporting 
students, but, while with good 
intentions, it greatly missed 
the mark by including tips that 
were incompatible with the 
reality of being a student of 
low socioeconomic status. One 
tip included the suggestion 
that students pay off their 
credit card debt with another 
credit card. This is reckless 
advice that could lead to more 
financial difficulties and is 
highly discouraged by banking 
services 
such 
as 
Discover 

Bank. Other advice seemed to 
come from a place of outright 
privilege, 
exhibiting 
just 

how removed from campus 
life they were by issuing out 
“budgeting” tips such as firing 
one’s gardener or to stop using 
a laundry service.

While the guide offered 

some very useful information 
on using campus resources, 
much of it was overshadowed 
by the condescension of the 
problematic 
sections. 
The 

guide could have been an 
effective resource for students, 
but soon after its release, the 
out-of-touch sections and tone 
robbed it of any legitimacy.

Instead of prioritizing the 

quality of the information they 
provided, the authors seemed 
to have aimed to create a 
daunting, 84-page document. 
The lost time and effort in 
creating a visually impressive 
guide could have been spent 
on 
any 
number 
of 
other 

beneficial CSG programs or, 
more pertinently, on refining 
the information in the original 
product.

The tone and information in 

the CSG Affordability Guide 
is also indicative of a larger 
institutional 
problem: 
the 

body’s lack of diversity. CSG’s 
problem with diversity is well 
documented 
in 
their 
own 

2016-2017 Diversity Report. 
The information shows the 
organization is not reflective 
of the University’s population 
demographics, 
especially 

in the socioeconomic status 
category. 
Over 
35 
percent 

of CSG members come from 
a household income of over 
$250,000, 
whereas 
the 

median family income at the 
University is $154,000.

The 
evidence 
of 
the 

problems that arise when a 
group is overly homogenous is 
clear in the out-of-touch advice 
given 
in 
the 
Affordability 

Guide. The CSG environment 
runs the risk of becoming an 
echo chamber in which ideas, 
while good intentioned, are 
not evaluated in a way that 
ensures all of their projects 
will be substantially adding 
to the welfare of the students 
they represent.

An 
easy 
way 
to 
avoid 

similar 
problems 
from 

arising in the near future is 
by actively seeking out the 
help of students who come 
from different backgrounds 
in every step of a project’s 
process, including analyzing 
the finished product before 
publishing it. In a recent 
Facebook 
post, 
CSG 
Vice 

President Nadine Jawad, the 
director of the guide, wrote 
CSG 
was 
“taking 
student 

concerns and criticisms to 
the 
guide 
very 
seriously” 

in the process of recreating 
the guide. She also shared 
the opportunity for students 
to voice their concerns at a 
discussion Monday night. This 
is a step in the right direction 
to ensure that resources for 
students are created with all 
students in mind. However, 
on a more long-term scale, 
CSG needs to confront their 
problems with homogeny and 
find ways to make membership 
easier and more appealing to 
students of low socioeconomic 
status.

In its current state, CSG is 

perceived as an organization 
with 
a 
revolving 
door 
of 

members who put enormous 
effort 
into 
gaining 
the 

position but end up dropping 
the ball on the projects they 
start. This results in members 
serving 
their 
tenure 
and 

leaving 
without 
creating 

much lasting change. While 

there is no doubt that the 
endeavors they undertake are 
worthwhile and come from a 
place of kindness and support, 
the picture they have painted 
of themselves recently is that 
of a student group whose 
members 
prioritize 
their 

position in the organization as 
a résumé builder rather than 
their service to the University 
community. If efforts aren’t 
taken to rectify the perception 
of 
CSG 
in 
the 
upcoming 

semester, 
they 
could 
lose 

credibility with the students, 
which, as a representative 
body, 
will 
significantly 

decrease the clout they need in 
pursuing any future projects.

But all is not lost. With 

CSG elections on the horizon, 
there is room for change and 
improvement. We hope the 
upcoming candidates, when 
choosing their party, make 
a notable effort to include 
students of all backgrounds 
on their ticket. This will 
require the new candidates to 
be cognizant of the barriers 
to running for CSG that many 
low socioeconomic students 
will face, including the time 
commitment 
and 
campaign 

fees that some parties request 
from their members. We ask 
for candidates to accommodate 
students who may not be able to 
dedicate as much to the party 
as others due to these external 
factors. 
Oftentimes, 
these 

students’ voices are the most 
reflective of the experience of 
the majority on campus.

CSG 
is 
a 
powerful 

organization 
with 
the 

resources 
to 
make 
lasting 

change 
on 
the 
student 

experience at the University. 
It would be of great service 
to the University community 
if they would take effort to 
confront the problems within 
their institution, which have 
caused 
the 
recent 
string 

of unpopular projects, and 
prioritize 
rectifying 
these 

issues in the near future.

Illustration by Joe Iovino.

CSG cannot afford another misstep

