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