Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, April 4, 2018

T

he
instability
in
the

White House deepened
in the past two weeks

with the firings of Secretary of
State
Rex
Tillerson,
National

Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
and Secretary of Veteran Affairs
David Shulkin. Amid this string of
high-profile departures, rumors
circulated that President Donald
Trump is considering firing special
counsel Robert Mueller, whose
investigation into the Russian
interference in the 2016 election
is reportedly zeroing in on senior
Trump administration officials.

Trump
lacks
the
direct

authority to fire Mueller himself,
as does Attorney General Jeff
Sessions who recused himself
from the Russia investigation last
year. But Trump could orchestrate
Mueller’s dismissal by ordering a
top-ranking Justice Department
official
to
fire
Mueller,
and

firing those officials who refuse,
until someone agrees. Such a
sequence would be reminiscent
of the notorious “Saturday Night
Massacre” in the final year of
Richard Nixon’s presidency, when
Nixon forced the firing of the
special prosecutor investigating
the Watergate scandal.

If Trump follows in Nixon’s

footsteps and fires Mueller, it will
be time to discuss the “i-word.” Yes,
impeachment. Many Democratic
members
of
Congress
have

already
called
for
Trump’s

impeachment, but Democratic
Congressional
leaders
have

pushed back strongly against
impeachment,
and
rightfully

so. Trump has made many poor
decisions in his short time as
president, but none warranting
impeachment. That changes if
Trump decides to fire Mueller.

Trump has not tried to hide his

disdain for Mueller’s investigation.
He has repeatedly belittled the
probe as a “witch hunt” and recently
called for a new special prosecutor
to scrutinize alleged bias at the
Justice
Department,
including

within Mueller’s investigation. The
idea of a new special prosecutor to
investigate the special counsel is
every bit as ludicrous as it sounds,
especially
when
considering

Mueller’s hard-earned reputation
for integrity and professionalism.
On Saturday, Sessions declined to
name a new special prosecutor,
reigniting tension between Sessions
and Trump.

Trump
has
long
loathed

Mueller’s investigation, but his
irritation will likely only grow
now that Mueller has subpoenaed
The Trump Organization and is
focusing in on Trump’s inner circle.
In addition, Mueller’s face-to-face
interview of Trump looms in the
distance. With Trump’s growing
animosity toward Mueller, Sessions
and the Justice Department in
general,
it
appears
distinctly

possible that Trump may move to
fire Mueller, as he has long yearned
to do.

Unlike
cabinet
secretaries

and White House officials, special
prosecutors do not serve at the
pleasure of the president. Mueller
can only be legally fired with
just cause, and despite repeated
attempts by many of the right
wing to discredit his investigation,
no such legitimate cause exists.
Mueller is a distinguished attorney
and a Bush-era former FBI Director
(and a lifelong Republican). His
sole loyalty is to the law, and the
notion that his investigation is
biased, as has been claimed by both
right-wing pundits and politicians,
simply doesn’t hold water.

Trump’s
true
motive
to

fire Mueller is clear: to end the
investigation
before
it
could

uncover anything incriminating
about his senior aides or himself. If
Trump’s campaign did not collude,
or conspire to collude, with Russia to
win the election, then the president
can rest assured that Mueller’s
probe will vindicate him. This fact
is what makes it so alarming, if not
outright suspicious, that Trump is
considering firing Mueller in the
first place. Certainly, an unresolved
special investigation is a political
nuisance, but, as Trump’s advisors
have surely told him, the political
fallout would be far worse if
Trump fired Mueller, raising again
the question of why Trump would
even consider doing so.

This speculation, though, is

hardly a sufficient replacement
for the concrete answers that
Mueller’s
probe
promises
to

provide.
Furthermore,
with

the way that the Congressional
inquiries into Russian interference
have
gone,
the
Mueller

investigation is likely the only
one that will come to a reliable
conclusion. The House Intelligence
Committee’s
investigation

devolved into a partisan sham,
with both parties issuing their
own
concluding
reports
last

month. Later, Rep. Mike Conaway,

R-Texas admitted to the media
that the committee did not even
try to fully investigate collusion.
The Senate’s investigation, while
still ongoing, has also run into
partisan divisions.

The importance of Mueller’s

investigation
cannot
be

understated, as it is the only
one
capable
of
definitively

determining whether Trump’s
campaign colluded with Russia.
This fact, coupled with the
absence of a justifiable reason to
terminate Mueller’s investigation,
is why firing Mueller would
amount to a clear case of
obstruction of justice.

Impeachment is not a word

that should be thrown around
lightly, nor a political weapon
to be used casually. But no one,
including the president, is above
the law. That principle has guided
American politics since the Nixon
era and will be tested if Trump
decides to fire Mueller. Thus
far, Trump has done nothing to
warrant impeachment. He has
committed (that we know of) no
high crimes or misdemeanors.
However, if Trump decides to fire
Mueller, he will have obstructed
justice, a grave offense and one
worthy of impeachment.

Political realities are a delicate

matter. Trump enjoys Republican
majorities in both houses of
Congress and could foreseeably
dodge the natural consequences of
firing a special prosecutor. While
some Republicans have sharply
warned Trump against doing
so, others have joined Trump
in
criticizing
Mueller
and

would likely rally to his side.
But another political reality is
that the president of the United
States is under investigation
for possibly colluding with
a
foreign
government
to

influence his own election and
is reportedly considering using
his powers to prematurely
end that investigation. This
matter goes beyond everyday
politics and extends to the
integrity of our democratic
institutions. Impeachment is
not on the table right now, nor
should it be. But should Trump
fire
Mueller,
impeachment

would be the appropriate and
requisite response.

If Trump fires Mueller, time for the i-word

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

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

How to talk about climate change

ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

HANNAH CONNORS, RACHEL SCHWAB, ALICIA VANDERPOOL, CHARLOTTE MASUCCI, JORDAN
STONE | OP-ED

T

he
University
of

Michigan has exceptional
academics,
athletics,

alumni and more, but it is severely
lacking in one area: providing
mental health education and
awareness
of
resources
on

campus. The University’s First
Year Experience programs are
excellent in providing freshmen
with
information
on
sexual

assault, bystander intervention
and the dangers of binge drinking.
Yet, there is a dire need for
something similar to fill the
current void of mental health
education and assist students
in
navigating
an
oftentimes

confusing system.

Too many freshmen enter

campus without the knowledge
of where to access these resources
and support in times of need not
only in their first year but also
throughout their entire college
experience. With a mental health
education component in freshman
residence hall meetings equipping
students with knowledge of both
the resources available and how
to best utilize them, many issues
regarding
mental
health
on

campus would be alleviated.

According to the University’s

Counseling
and
Psychological

Services website over 57.7 million
people suffer from the negative
consequences of various mental
health disorders and illnesses each
year, and a 2002 study showed
over 31,000 people act on these
negative consequences, ending

their lives via suicide. Based on

our own experiences and those of
our peers, we know many students
suffering from these different
disorders saw their mental health
deteriorate
after
arriving
on

campus. More importantly, they
were not adequately informed of
the resources they had access to

on campus to receive help.

We have seen, either through

our own experiences or those of
our friends, the ways in which
mental illness can severely hurt
one’s
college
experience.
As

the first in her family to attend
college, a member of our group,
Alicia Vanderpool, had no prior
knowledge or preparation for
how difficult college life would be.
Three years later, she is just now
becoming aware of the resources
available to help treat her now
diagnosed generalized anxiety
disorder and major depressive
disorder. However, because she
has
already
developed
these

different mental disorders, it has
become much harder to treat and
is taking more of the University’s
time and resources than it would
have if she would’ve been treated
much earlier on.

Another
member,
Hannah

Connors, is a Wolverine Support
Network leader and frequently
refers
students
to
campus

resources they either did not know
about or have trouble navigating.
Throughout her three semesters
as a leader, she has noticed the
need to better educate students
about the help available to them
and knows there are thousands of
students she has not met who may
be struggling similarly.

Only 42 percent of students

surveyed
are
aware
of
the

Wellness
Zone
on
Central

Campus, 27 percent are aware
of the CAPS embedded model
and 17 percent are aware of “the
Department of Psychiatry of
Outpatient Clinics (including the
Depression Center),” according to
the Central Student Government
Mental Health Taskforce report
published last year. There are
already enough barriers for
students seeking help for their

mental health, including general
stigma and fear — confusion
over resources should not add to
the challenge.

To
remedy
this
problem,

a
mental
health
education

component should be included
in all freshman residence hall
meetings. It is a small enough
setting that students are more
likely to actively pay attention
and retain information as this
is a meeting almost all students
already attend. Since 97 percent
of first-year students live in
University housing, it is one of the
best places to relay information.

Implementing
programming

like this would likely call for the
University to hire at least one
new full-time staff member since
thousands of first-year students
live in University Housing and
coordinating the mental health
education
component
of
so

many meetings would be time-
intensive. While this presents an
upfront cost to the University, a
preventative measure like this one
will decrease the overall trauma
students
experience
through

mental illness and will save the
University time and money in the
long run.

In
order
to
convince

administration, a great number
of students and staff need to
demonstrate their support. To
aid this cause and pressure
administration to take action on
this important issue, you can sign
and share this petition: http://bit.
ly/umich123

Hannah Connors is an LSA

Sophomore, Rachel Schwab is an LSA

Sophomore, Alicia Vanderpool is a

Stamps Junior, Charlotte Masucci is a

Public Health Junior and Jordan Stone

is a School of Information Sophomore

F

rom
the
increasing

frequency and intensity of
extreme weather events to

rising sea levels, man-made climate
change has already begun to bear
environmentally-detrimental
fruit. These trends jeopardize
the environment and the human
populations that they sustain. The
effects of climate change, while
often difficult to observe in a short
period of time, will only continue
to materialize unless significant
steps are taken to curb its causes.

Climate change — defined

as the significant increase global
temperatures
since
America’s

industrial revolution — is mostly
fueled by the incredible amounts
of carbon dioxide pumped into the
air by human consumption of fossil
fuels, such as coal and petroleum
products. It follows, then, that
phasing out fossil fuels in favor of
renewable energy sources, such
as wind and solar power, will help
curb this crisis before too much
damage is done.

However, the acknowledgment

of climate change’s effects and
subsequent
attitudes
toward

renewables have devolved from
matters of scientific and accepted
fact into divisive subjects of
increasingly virulent political and
cultural dispute. While a near-
consensus of scientists agree on
the reality of climate change,
current doubt among the public
has persisted, largely due to
the turnaround in conservative
ideology in the last decade.

This turnaround owes itself

to a confluence of political factors,
stemming
from
both
special

interests of certain conservative
donors and a reaction to Barack
Obama’s presidency. Amid the
realization that renewables posed
a serious threat to oil, industry
executives launched a campaign
to undermine the legitimacy of
climate change, and the shift to
renewables that it encouraged.
These selfish business interests,
along with lasting perceptions
of President Obama’s legacy,
surely
approach
conservative

opinion on climate change more
rationally than morally sectarian
narratives do.

Should shifting conservative

opinion back to environmental
protection,
then,
rely
on

countering the effects of these
political occurrences? Democrats
do not seem to think so. So far,
Democrats efforts have instead
opted to repeatedly emphasize

the science behind climate change
and its negative impact on both the
environment and people.

This tactic might work well for

citizens that already lean left, but
solely addressing the moral aspects
of
environmentalism
neglects

citizens
predisposed
against

this point of view. Consequently,
liberals have failed to win over any
real converts—87 percent of self-
identified Republicans doubt the
scientific consensus behind man-
made climate change, an opinion
shown to be the “gateway” to
supporting meaningful action on
climate change.

Winning
non-

environmentalists back to the cause
must occur soon before the effects
of climate change become grossly
irreparable. In order to succeed,
the left must swiftly deviate
from its current approaches and
redress the factors that originally
fueled
conservative
antipathy

toward environmentalism.

The first of these factors, large

injections of political money from
fossil fuel interest groups, reflect
an artificial distortion of the energy
market away from renewables.
Even though renewable sources
of energy are inherently much
more
efficient
than
fossil

fuels, they largely remain less
economically viable than would
be presumed due to subsidies for
fossil fuel industries.

This
disparity
continues

in
stark
violation
of
free-

market values, leaving room for
conservatives to cozy up to the
idea of renewable energy use. The
economic benefits of renewables
are clear— improvements in solar
and battery technology could
slim average electricity costs by
a factor of three. The significant
consumer benefits conferred by
embracing renewables illustrates
the large role of economic values in
resonating environmentalism with
non-environmentalists.

Just as important in reconciling

acceptance of renewables with
non-environmentalist ideology are
the national security concerns of
climate change. Looking at recent
mass migrations out of Pakistan to
the current water crisis in South
Africa, it is blatantly obvious that
climate abnormalities can fuel
instability and uncertainty around
the globe.

Climate change specifically

plays a key role in aggravating
existing conflicts and dynamics,
as has been already acknowledged

by military officials, increasing the
likelihood that American military
insertion becomes necessary for
stabilization. Given conservatives’
dedication to military service
members and restraint in foreign
military
involvement,
climate-

caused stresses should give any
conservative American cause for
real fear.

Much as arguments centering

on economic viability and national
security
would
help
reverse

the
environmental
antipathy

sparked by fossil fuel interest
groups,
conservatives’
distaste

with the Obama administration’s
handling of energy policy could
be
ameliorated
with
appeals

to personal security interests.
President
Obama’s
rollout
of

executive
orders,
directives

and
regulations
centered
on

environmental reform inextricably
tied environmental reform to the
idea of extreme federal overreach
for many Americans.

What better to counter this

sentiment
than
highlighting

the
increased
self-sufficiency

that
accompanies
renewable

energy use? A shift away from
power grid reliance would grant
Americans the ability to power
themselves independent of utility
companies and the government.
And, contrary to dismissals of
renewables as less reliable than
fossil fuels, encouragement of
renewable energy use actually
prompts energy production on a
larger scale, bringing substantially
decreased variation in collective
energy output. Those pushing
environmental initiatives would
be
wise
to
underscore
how

renewables, as reliable as they are
pervasive, contribute to personal
security interests.

In today’s political climate,

it can be difficult to remember
how
effective
environmental

policy used to work. However,
it is not enough for current
environmentalists to reiterate the
same calls to action, founded in
the science, morality and sense
of responsibility behind climate
change.
Effectively
convincing

entire populations of Republicans
and non-environmentalists instead
demands a tailored presentation
founded on conservative ideology.

Ethan Kessler can be reached at

ethankes@umich.edu.

Noah Harrison can be reached at

noahharr@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Address mental health in first-year experience