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.

