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.

