A s a gay man, I’ve heard the word “queer” used as an insult since childhood. The best definition I can come up with is to say that it is used to describe someone who doesn’t uphold the same norms of masculinity as their straight counterparts. The word stung, but I think it’s time to have a serious conversation discussing the future of the word “queer” in spaces as it relates to lesbian, gay, bisexual and possibly transgender individuals. In having this discussion, I understand that I am someone who has a lot of privilege in LGBTQ spaces; as a gay, white male, there are a lot of privileges that I hold in comparison to many of my compatriots. In making this argument, I will never try to say that all of my experiences are the same as people who fall outside of the binary or have a different sexual orientation than myself; however, in terms of activism, I see this as a powerful way to unite the community in shared goals. In a lot of ways, we can see that corporate America has begun to be more accepting of sexual identity. A favorite store of millennials, Target Corp., has 76 items for sale under their “PRIDE” umbrella. A lot of people see this and assume the world has become more accepting of LGBTQ identities; in my mind, these products simply give companies another marketing demographic to exploit. If you’ll notice, most of them talk about “pride” but avoid the controversial topics about sexuality or identity, or fail to acknowledge the tough questions or advocacy that a company and organization should if they’re to engage in this kind of profitable endeavor. For example, here in the state of Michigan, I could be fired for being gay, and I don’t see Target Corp. directly protecting individuals against sexual-orientation discrimination. Millions of Americans are experiencing the same thing; we can see that this experience is shared among a variety of identities within the queer community. These shared experiences are why I want to employ the word queer; despite the various differences in our marginalization and experience in the community, we should be fighting together to protect people from workplace discrimination, to make it obligatory for insurance companies to cover gender-confirmation surgery, for legal protections for polyamorous relationships and various other experiences. I want to employ the word queer to show solidarity with other identity counterparts who might be experiencing marginalization in ways that I am not. The queer rights movement did not stop at gay marriage. And if I have it my way, it will never stop. A common misconception of the Stonewall Rebellion, according to Henry Abelove, is that the idea of liberation was to identify as homosexual or heterosexual. In actuality, it was to remove those titles. While I firmly believe everyone has a place to belong, I want us to aspire to foster a community where those identities can help us find a home both within that identity and outside of it, into the broader queer community and beyond. There may not be a path to this in the immediate future, but I think this argument of employing the word queer needs to be a larger focus in the discussions about the community. Trans-inclusivity into the LGBTQ community needs to be stronger and the issues of trans individuals need to be centered in these discussions, because I envision a community where the most marginalized can be the ones I stand in solidarity with and assist in any way I can. As an aside, I’m not here to use the word for straight cis-peoples’ comfort. I don’t care if it makes one of those individuals uncomfortable in using the phrase. I’m here to be a gay man who identifies as being a part of the queer community. And I hope that many of us can aspire to do the same. I can think of no better word to describe the community than the one which was employed when I was a kid. When I was younger, it would symbolize when someone was doing something outside of the gender norms that we follow on a day-to-day basis. I want to fall outside of those norms, though. I have no interest in being a part of the structures that have caused myself and so many of my peers to be marginalized. I aspire to reclaim the word queer in an attempt to show that we don’t need to fall in line with the negative connotations this word initially imposed. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Tuesday, February 13, 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 Elena Hubbell Emily Huhman Jeremy Kaplan Sarah Khan Lucas Maiman Ellery Rosenzweig Jason Rowland Anu Roy-Chaudhury Ali Safawi Kevin Sweitzer Tara Jayaram Ashley Zhang Economically, the Republican-driven bill restructures loan repayment plans and removes Public Service Loan Forgiveness. These changes make it more difficult for undergraduate and graduate students by making it more difficult to receive financial aid because of PROSPER’s redeveloped loan limit. The bill also calls for the elimination of Stafford and PLUS loans, replacing the varying options with a singular Federal ONE Loan program. These Federal ONE Loans give students differing borrowing limits, depending on their financial situation; dependent undergraduate students are able to borrow $39,000 in federal student loans, and independent undergraduate students have a $60,250 lifetime cap. Repayment options are also being restricted, with only two new repayment plans that are the standard 10-year plans. These limiting actions, in addition to the phasing out of all federal grant programs (excluding the PELL grant), have the potential to widen the education disparity between socioeconomic groups and lessen the educational options available to lower-income students. The loss of options, aid and change in loan caps ultimately restrict students and make the pursuit of graduate education less attainable. In addition to monetary changes, PROSPER also includes many social restrictions that could leave students fearing discrimination. There are explicit provisions within the bill about freedom of expression and religion, which will make it so that no government institution is able to take action against an institution of higher education that is acting within “its religious mission.” This has prompted many LGBTQ advocates to fear legal discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The fear of discrimination acts as a barrier for students deciding to which schools to apply, limiting their education options. The bill allows private institutions to receive federal funding regardless of whether or not they institute discriminatory practices. The provisions also allow for discrimination at the public level, as student organizations could undermine a university’s anti-discrimination policies due to their own beliefs and determination of freedom of expression. And finally, the focus on freedom of speech within PROSPER could possibly make it even easier for controversial speakers to reach campuses, leading to social tensions and higher potential for security risks, putting the safety of college students into question. In addition to economic and social provisions, PROSPER also comments on due process in a manner that undermines sexual assault policies on campuses across the nation. With a focus on sexual assault within PROSPER, the bill allows institutions to set their own standards for evidence when investigating accusations. Institutions could, therefore, have the right to introduce greater criminal standards, possibly “beyond a reasonable doubt” — the standard of proof required in criminal cases — rather than the “preponderance of evidence” standard previously required by the Obama administration. This allows for more opportunity for victim shaming, longer trial times and the undermining of survivors’ accusations. And, this again affects LGBTQ students disproportionately, as they are more susceptible to sexual assault and less likely to report their experiences. This could ultimately impact the number of student survivors who come forward and the concern given for those who do. The PROSPER Act is a bill that hurts current, future, undergraduate and graduate students by directly affecting their experience and safety within their college environment, while also limiting the choices they have when applying for higher education. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board calls upon the University of Michigan to lobby against this bill when the time comes as it is not conducive to our values of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. Lobby against PROSPER Act N ews broke last week that the Pentagon is in the early stages of planning a large military parade in Washington, D.C. after being directed to do so by President Donald Trump. The Trump administration has long desired a military parade. It reportedly hoped to organize one for Trump’s inauguration and the interest was rekindled after watching France’s Bastille Day military parade. At some point in late January, Trump’s interest in a grand military spectacle became an order, and the parade is reportedly being planned at the “highest levels of the military.” News of the parade elicited criticism from both sides of the aisle, and retired military leaders have also expressed opposition. Legislation has been introduced to restrict appropriations for any parade, but Republican congressional leaders will likely block it from even coming to a vote to avoid embarrassing the Trump administration. The parade is likely to proceed regardless of the criticism, and the White House has confirmed planning is underway, with possible dates including the Fourth of July or Veteran’s Day. If executed properly, a military parade could serve as a fitting and deserved tribute to our troops and armed services. However, because such a parade is unfortunately more likely to manifest itself as a politicized show of military force, it is difficult to envision the parade’s advantages exceeding its potential drawbacks. The most obvious of these drawbacks is cost. It is estimated a military parade will cost millions of dollars at minimum, and one of the scale that Trump desires will likely cost several million more. The steep price tag comes from costs associated with transporting military equipment and vehicles to Washington, D.C. and the massive security costs the parade will surely entail. The last time the U.S. held a military parade was 1991 to celebrate victory in the Gulf War. That parade cost $12 million, would be $21.6 million today when adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, the parade could cause damage to D.C.’s roads, which are not designed to support vehicles as heavy as the tanks and armored vehicles that will be featured. In the 1991 parade, tank tracks punched holes through the capital city’s boulevards. That 1991 parade also caused extensive damage to a sculpture garden when the air blast of low-flying helicopters showered the exhibits with pebbles. Such a freak accident will not likely be repeated in Trump’s parade but underscores the hazards of holding military spectacles in civilian settings. Another concern is the disconcerting optics of a military parade through the nation’s capital. Some democratic countries do hold military parades; the Bastille Day celebrations that inspired Trump are an example. However, there is no denying that grand displays of military strength evoke connotations of authoritarian regimes like North Korea, China and Russia, where demonstrations of force serve to dissuade dissent, prop up autocratic rulers and intimidate adversaries. Several retired generals have raised concerns that military parades go against American democratic traditions. Robert O’Neill, the former Navy SEAL who claims to have fired the shots that killed Bin Laden, concurred and likened the idea of a military parade to autocracy in colorful language. Perhaps the authoritarian optics could be easily overlooked under another president, but the reality is that Trump has earned a reputation for admiring despotism, making the optics of a military parade through Washington, D.C. all the more unsettling. For example, Trump has previously expressed respect for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership and praised former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s brutal internal security policies. Around the same time news of the parade surfaced, Trump called Democrats in Congress “treasonous” for not clapping during parts of his State of the Union address, an accusation that is both false and grossly inappropriate in a democratic government. These statements create the persona of a man craving power and genuinely hostile toward his opposition. This image is entirely self-inflicted and, fairly or unfairly, is reinforced by Trump ordering the Pentagon to organize a military parade. The White House is marketing the parade as a celebration of the armed forces and veterans. Veterans are certainly worthy of the honor of a parade, but there are far better ways to thank them for their service. Instead of spending tens of millions on a lavish and ultimately meaningless military parade, spend that money on veterans’ health care, job placement, disability benefits or suicide prevention. Amid these far more important issues, it becomes clear that Trump’s parade serves merely as a distraction from real policy measures, foreign and domestic. For Trump and his dismal approval ratings, perhaps this distraction will be welcomed; but for the American people, a military parade through Washington, D.C. is nothing more than an unsightly and extravagant waste of time and money. With the fate of Trump’s parade in the hands of the White House and the Pentagon, we can only hope that his parade of indulgence does not come to fruition. A pointless parade NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN Taking back “queer” IAN LEACH | COLUMN Ian Leach can be reached at ileach@umich.edu. Noah Harrison can be reached at noahharr@umich.edu. SARAH NEFF | CAN BE REACHED AT SANE@UMICH.EDU CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com. FROM THE DAILY A higher education bill, known as the PROSPER Act, has been passed through committee and is awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives. PROSPER, which stands for “Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity Through Education Reform,” is intended to reassert and amend the 1965 Higher Education Act, with a strong focus on the processes by which students pay for higher education and the regulations on free speech and assembly within these institutions. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board feels that the provisions of the bill hurt students pursuing higher education financially and socially, as well as in regard to their safety. There are serious problems within the current bill, which should not be passed without significant amendments.