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