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.