Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, March 15, 2018
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Ethan Kessler
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Using the private sector for good
Teaching comprehensive U.S. history
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN
R
ecently, I realized all of
the American history
classes
I’ve
been
enrolled in thus far have taught
primarily
white
American
history. In my history classes,
the teacher would briefly touch
on the Trail of Tears, talk even
more briefly about Japanese
internment camps and discuss
slavery. Slavery and related
topics were always the most
extensively taught part of U.S.
history primarily concerning
people of color. However, a
report by the Southern Poverty
Law Center (SPLC) revealed
when a group of 1,000 high
school
seniors
were
asked
to answer a multiple choice
question about why the South
seceded from the Union, only
eight percent chose the right
answer. So while my peers and
I, who attended Ann Arbor
public schools, might know
the answer to that question
is “to preserve slavery,” most
people don’t know that answer.
It seems as though none of us
know much about the history
of other cultural groups in the
U.S., at least from what I’ve
observed. This is problematic
because people of color make
up a huge chunk of the United
States’s population and are
a huge part of its history;
omitting
their
histories
creates a false and incomplete
portrayal
of
United
States
history as a whole.
The
problem
of
not
teaching
the
histories
of
American
people
of
color
is not necessarily rooted in
carelessness. The SPLC report
also
interviewed
teachers,
some
of
whom
expressed
why they feel uncomfortable
teaching
the
histories
of
minorities. One teacher in
Maine admitted, “I find it
painful and embarrassing (as a
white male) to teach about the
history of exploitation, abuse,
discrimination and outrageous
crimes
committed
against
African Americans and other
minorities.”
Another
teacher
in
California explained their fear
that learning about slavery
reduces Black people to slaves
in the eyes of other students,
commenting,
“Sometimes
it gives students the idea to
call Black students slaves or
tell them to go work in the
field because of the lack of
representation in textbooks.”
It’s
understandable
that
teaching
about
how
white Americans oppressed
Americans
of
color
could
be embarrassing as a white
person; however, this is not a
valid excuse not to teach such
histories.
Leaving
out
the
histories of people of color in
the United States only acts
as another way of oppression
because it silences the voices of
those who suffered. As painful
or as embarrassing as it may
be, their struggles must be
remembered so we can learn
from them to keep fighting
against oppression.
As
for
the
statement
that textbooks have a lack
of representation of certain
groups and result in racism:
Unfortunately,
people
will
always find a way to be racist,
no matter what is taught
in schools. A foundation of
racism is the idea that certain
groups are homogenous and
no differences exist between
individuals. In addition, the
teacher seems to be assuming
that the only parts of history
regarding
minorities
that
are worth teaching are the
injustices committed against
them. While learning about
such
moments
is
clearly
important, there’s more to
people of color than their
suffering.
Therefore,
if
teachers are willing to perhaps
go beyond the textbook and
teach more about the history of
minorities than just how they
were (and still are) oppressed,
students would also begin to
understand people of color are
not all the same.
Other than the lack of
representation in my history
classes, I’ve also noticed most of
the books my English teachers
have assigned for class, both
at the University of Michigan
and the schools I’ve previously
attended, have been written by
white writers. Occasionally,
I would be assigned books by
Black writers. I read Ralph
Ellison’s
“Invisible
Man”
senior year of high school, and
I’ve been assigned to read a few
of Christopher Paul Curtis’s
books over the years as well.
However, books by other
writers of other races have
always been notably absent.
While some of my teachers
have assigned books by Black
writers, as an Asian American,
I am disappointed I had never
been assigned to read a book by
an Asian-American writer until
this semester in my American
culture
class.
I
had
also
previously never read a book
in which the main protagonist
was Asian-American until this
semester. I’m not sure if I’ve
even ever been assigned to read
a book with an Asian-American
character at all.
I think that part of the
reason teachers choose not to
pick books by Asian Americans
or books about the experiences
of Asian American might be
because they don’t have the
confidence to teach it well —
and the reason they don’t have
the confidence is because they
themselves as students barely
learned anything about Asian-
American history in history
class. As a result, I think when
teachers attempt to diversify
their
reading
assignments,
they tend to choose books by
Black writers, since they are
at least a little more familiar
with the topics of slavery and
racism against Black people.
Of course, not every book by
a person of color is about the
oppression of people of color.
In addition, care should be
taken not to read books by
people of color and believe
them to have no identity other
than that of a victim. However,
it is still important to teach
the
histories
of
America’s
people of color to build a more
comprehensive view of not just
United States’ history but also
of the United States today.
While I only touch on race
in this article, and only three
different ones at that, there is
so much more that makes the
U.S. such a diverse country,
and these histories should be
taught, too. Instead of only
remembering white, cisgender
and
heterosexual
historical
figures and what they did for
the country, we must remember
what many, many others have
made an impact too.
W
e have serious issues
on
this
campus,
issues
that
cannot
be resolved with just hopeful
promises. It is not enough to spew
meaningless platitudes and vows
that cannot be kept. If Central
Student Government is to gain the
trust of this university, then its
candidates must be honest about the
problems the University of Michigan
faces and how these problems can
be addressed. Today, aMplify will
endeavor to do just that. Today,
aMplify will tell the truth.
The truth is CSG must do
more to engage its constituents. It
cannot act as a bloated politburo
that ignores the needs of its
students. Our government must
be reorganized to allow the
voices of individual schools and
students of all levels to be heard.
Councils must give voice to those
groups on campus that direct
the course of the University. The
CSG funding process must be
reformed to encourage initiatives
that are capable of effecting
positive change. Government must
operate in tandem with the clubs,
fraternities and schools that form
our cultural foundation. There can
be no room for unilateral actions
without dialogue. We must be
accountable to each other.
The truth is your student
government and university have
failed to be transparent about
its
actions.
Legislation
was
recently passed to reveal how
representatives voted on the most
important issues facing the student
body, and yet those votes remain
unpublished.
As
the
election
approaches, the voting behavior
of candidates on issues like the
attempt to compensate student
government officials is shrouded
in mystery. This vote proceeded
despite the finite resources of
CSG and the University, resources
that could be better allocated
toward the student body. On the
University level, tuition increases
are announced without sufficient
advance
notice
and
decisions
are
made
without
adequate
explanation.
This
pattern
of
obfuscation must end. The student
body must take part in the choices
that shape its life.
The truth is meaningful action
to protect our students and the
learning environment from incidents
of bias and assault must be taken.
Evil has no place here, and CSG
must push for strong administrative
responses that respect both the law
and the rights of those affected. That
means implementing the proposed
amendment to the student code of
conduct, increasing the penalties
for those who attack this sacred
community. That means forming
partnerships with faculty, staff
and students to create consistent,
meaningful, practical and effective
responses to attacks on community
members. That means community
oversight
of
investigations
of
sexual misconduct, bigotry and
impropriety at the University. That
means a University accountable to
its members.
The truth is people like
Richard Spencer and Charles
Murray
will
sometimes
walk
among us. At times, we must face
those who cower behind the First
Amendment as they spread their
insidious rhetoric. Our response to
groups who resort to instruments of
fear to hide their own inadequacies
and bigotry must be unyielding. We
must react with morality, courage
and peace to those cold and
destructive souls who seek to sow
seeds of division. Only then will
they find unfruitful soil. To that
end, CSG and the administration
must provide clarity through open
discussion,
concrete
processes
and meaningful dialogues on how
it intends to protect its students
while promoting a variety of
perspectives.
Initiatives
like
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion,
and programs like Wolverine
Pathways, Intergroup Relations
and the Go Blue Guarantee are a
start, but they cannot be the end of
our commitment to diversity. There
must be an independent review
board of the University’s actions
on diversity and inclusion that does
more than rubberstamp initiatives.
The voice of the students must be
equal to that of the administration.
The truth is the University will
face issues like divestment and
we must face them with reason
and mercy. The harsh realities
of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia
and discrimination in all its forms
must be acknowledged. We must
recognize, too, that our actions
in these cases have an impact far
beyond the campus. They affect
our alumni, our students, our
faculty and staff, our employers,
our families and our future. There
is an obligation to consider, with an
open mind, the reasoning of every
expert and hear the perspective of
all who are willing to offer their
story. The University’s endowment
and spending, in general, must
be
considered
against
this
moral backdrop. The impact our
financial choices have on every
child and every alum across the
globe must be considered as we
act. Our economic behavior must
be governed by a partnership
of students and university that
consciously reviews our financial
choices and is answerable to
students, staff and faculty.
The truth is the problems
facing
this
campus
are
not
insignificant and neither are we.
Every point in our history has had
challenges and Wolverines to face
them down. This is not a resting
point for the faint of heart, this is
the home of victors valiant. Places
like the University of Michigan
are where the world changes for
the better; people like you are why
it does. We are here to support
those Wolverines who defined our
yesterdays, embrace our todays and
shape our tomorrows. We are here
to aMplify your voice.
Time to aMplify the Truth
SUJAY SHETTY AND MATTHEW WILLIAMS | OP-ED
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
I
n the wake of the tragic
mass shooting in Parkland,
Fla., a few weeks ago,
several major companies have
decided to publicly take a
stance on the contentious gun
control debate. Two major gun
sellers, Walmart Inc. and Dick’s
Sporting Goods Inc., recently
raised the minimum age for
gun buyers at their stores to
21. Because of their power as
a major distribution channel
for gun manufacturers, the
two companies were notable
additions to the list of companies
taking action after the tragedy
in Parkland.
Another
intriguing
development in the fight for
stricter
gun
control
in
the
U.S. was the recent New York
Times story by Andrew Ross
Sorkin in which he called for
institutional investors to use
their stakes in the gun industry
to encourage internal reform.
BlackRock, the largest investor
in the world and an investor
in several gun manufacturers,
has recently committed itself to
holding companies accountable
to “not only deliver financial
performance, but also show it
makes a positive contribution to
society.” As a major shareholder
in several gun manufacturers,
BlackRock
could
force
the
manufacturers
to
reform
themselves voluntarily.
BlackRock would have to
make a compelling, financial case
as to why the companies would
need to reform themselves, but it
is nonetheless possible. Imagine
if the private sector could push
social change on its own —
without the help (or coercion) of
the government.
The recent stances companies
have taken regarding the gun
control
debate
piqued
my
interest in whether or not it
was the private sector’s place
to take political stances at all.
It turns out companies have
been taking loud and highly
controversial political stances for
years. In fact, corporations were
supportive of the burgeoning
LGBTQ movement before many
liberal politicians were. Many
companies began offering gay
employees health care benefits
for
their
significant
others
long before politicians began
endorsing the practice.
With
more
and
more
companies taking political stances,
companies that remain silent
in an effort to appear impartial
may be worse off. In a marketing
class I took last semester, I
learned how companies are now
forming relationships with their
most valuable customers. Social
media has made this marketing
objective much easier as we can
all interact with our favorite
companies through our phones.
With this relationship, customers
have come to expect their favorite
brands to act and behave in a
certain way — which may involve
taking a controversial political
stance. Companies that choose
not to take a political stance miss
out on forming these relationships
with customers, which represents
lost revenue potential.
There are disadvantages to
taking a political stance, however.
Companies
have
extremely
diverse customers, so it is likely
that they draw from both sides of
the political spectrum. Taking a
controversial political stance can
result in outrage and lost sales from
a potentially significant subset of
a company’s customer base. When
the founder of Chick-fil-A publicly
opposed gay marriage, supporters
of his decision decided to have
a
“Support
Chick-fil-A
Day”
where the firm saw increased
store traffic on that day. The
enthusiasm from his supporters
quickly waned while the boycotts
from the adversaries continued
for a much longer period of time.
In addition, Ian Chipman wrote
for Stanford’s Graduate School of
Business that companies need to
be sure to not make customers feel
“queasy” about the brand, as such
a feeling remains “permanently
etched” in their brain. Companies
may need to pick and choose
topics on which they want to take
a stand.
Despite
the
potential
drawbacks, I like the idea of
companies standing up for
what they believe. The private
sector has the salience and
scale to push social change
much than the government.
Though numerous companies
have
been
committing
themselves to particular social
issues like gun control, climate
change and women’s rights,
the private sector could be
doing more.
I
urge
readers
of
this
publication
to
purchase
products from companies that
share your social and political
viewpoints. This past year saw
the #DeleteUber movement as
consumers were outraged by
CEO Travis Kalanick’s ties to
the Trump administration as
well as his muted response to
the Muslim travel ban. Because
of the movement, over 200,000
people deleted their Uber app.
Consumers really do have the
power to assist in changing the
status quo. Vote with your dollar
and put it toward something you
care about.
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
Sujay Shetty is an LSA junior and
Matthew Williams is a first-year Law
School student.
Krystal Hur can be reached at
kryshur@umich.edu.
FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRANNIE AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.