EMMA CHANG | SUMMER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
T
he
California
primaries
were a few weeks ago and
the
Michigan
primaries
on Aug. 7 are fast approaching.
This November marks the national
midterm elections that have the
potential to change America’s
political
landscape,
and
this
country
needs
some
serious
changing. But how exactly did we
get to this point in the first place?
A lot of people point to President
Donald
at
Trump
and
the
Republican Party, which is very
true, but I’m also looking at the vast
number of people who did not vote
and, though they did not directly
support Trump, were essential to
his presidential victory.
In the past week, I have
scrolled
through
Twitter
and
read tweets about how similar
America’s
relationship
with
Mexican immigrants is to the way
the Nazis treated their Jewish
population. And they are not
wrong. One tweet, in particular,
pointed out how taking rosary
beads from Mexican women is like
taking wedding rings from Jewish
women. Another tweet highlighted
the differences between platforms;
on the one hand, people on Twitter
are outraged, while on Instagram,
people have just recently started
to acknowledge the state of our
nation. This struck a chord. Here I
was, peacefully watching “Gilmore
Girls,” and at this moment, people
in this country are being torn away
from their families— and I feel like
I haven’t done anything. The only
immediate course of action I could
think of was to like the tweet and
feel sad about where we are as a
country. But that’s not enough.
In a generation where political
activism
and
awareness
is
a
defining
characteristic
of
a
person, the question remains: Do
we actually know or even care
about what is happening? How
many of us actually keep up with
the minute details of our state
legislature? Sure, I could tell you
the midterm elections are this
year and yes, I understand that
they are important in combating
our current administration. But
could I tell you anything about
the candidates? Most likely, no.
As a person who likes to think
of herself as “politically aware,”
this revelation was incredibly
disconcerting, especially as the
Michigan primaries and midterms
approach.
Social media has fostered a
false grasp of politics within our
country’s youth. It’s much too
easy to retweet or post a picture
of your political opinions and feel
as though you are participating in
the democratic process. This exact
thing happened with net neutrality.
It is still a huge issue, yet is no
longer trending on Twitter and,
therefore, no longer relevant to our
generation. But the opposite is true.
Other outlets such as podcasts like
“Pod Save America” and Crooked
Media’s other content are great
for feeling informed and trying
to understand the conversation,
but a lot of this so-called “action”
stops there. The company does a
fantastic job highlighting those
on the ground, trying to get things
done as well as creating their own
campaign
against
the
current
administration, but how many
of their listeners actually follow
through on the passionate requests
and commands of Jon Lovett and
Jon Favreau?
This false sense of awareness is
dangerous. With only a surface-
level understanding of both the
candidates and issues at hand, a lot
of the great aspects of democracy
are lost on a complacent public. One
of the best features of this country
is our right to vote, yet much of the
younger generation did not vote in
the presidential election, an issue
with repercussions that none of us
thought possible.
As a result of the last election, I
know a lot of my friends and other
young people around the country
have worked diligently to help
educate both ourselves and our
peers. Yara Shahidi, an 18-year-
old actress from the hit shows
“Black-ish”
and
“Grown-ish,”
started an important campaign
called “Eighteenx18,” a program
that works to educate and register
younger voters. Just how much
impact has the program had,
however? The actress has 2.4
million followers on Instagram, but
only 16,600 follow the program’s
account. That’s less than 1 percent
of her audience. Sixteen thousand
is still a lot, but is it enough?
Some would argue it is. Others
would argue that they have a
much
deeper
understanding
both of their role as a voter and
who they are voting for, and they
might be right. But there are still
people out there that might not
have the opportunity, privilege or
motivation to spend hours combing
through
state
and
national
politics—yet still for some reason,
feel as though they are deserving
of the label “politically active.”
I’m going to say it right now: I am
one of these people. It isn’t that I
don’t care, it is just that there are
so many other things going on in
my life that often take precedence
over the fact that I really need to
figure out for whom I want to vote;
however, up until the California
primaries and the writing of this
article, I would have proudly
stated I am very heavily involved
in politics when, in reality, I’m not.
While I do sometimes think
about how I should be helping
out a campaign, I have realized
I just do not have the time—or,
rather, I do not want to make it
one of my priorities. There are
people out there who will make it
a priority and will push campaigns
forward, but there are still more
people out there who have a basic
understanding of politics, but no
real wish to participate beyond
voting.
Therein
lies
another
problem: voter participation. One
of the biggest parts of a successful
democracy is the voters. In 2016,
only about 34 percent of Michigan
residents came out to vote in the
primaries, and 63 percent voted
in the general election. Compared
nationally, Michigan does pretty
well; 28.5 percent of the nation
came out for the primaries and 58
percent for the general election.
Still, though, participation in the
country’s elections is an essential
part of our democracy and even
if you don’t feel like knocking on
doors to help educate your peers,
at least educate yourself and go
vote.
I applaud those who can join
the political campaigns and are
actively
participating
in
the
democratic
process.
However,
the fact is, the majority of our
generation is only trying to get
involved. But just “trying” isn’t
enough. It’s not enough to post
your opinions on Twitter or
Instagram. It’s not enough to
simply go to a women’s march
and post a picture captioned with
support for the movement. None
of the marches and protests are
enough without an educated voter
and their subsequent decision at
the polling place.
5
OPINION
Thursday, June 28, 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
rounds of the assessment,
I
found
myself
using
a
simple verbal strategy to
my
advantage:
Whenever
the Black face and negative
word prompted the same
key, I identified both with
the verbal association Black/
bad, an alliteration which I
felt made my responses faster
and more accurate. If the
similar phonology of these
words contributed to the
increased response rate, this
seems to cast doubt on the
idea that negative emotional
responses
are
necessarily
at play in the IAT. Now, it’s
certainly the case that not
everyone
was
using
this
makeshift strategy, so I can’t
argue empirically that this
explains the results. But I
think this demonstrates on
theoretical grounds that a
delay in response time is
not necessarily caused by
negative
emotional
biases
against a particular race.
Still, influential studies
have shown that preferences
for names can result in a
detectable and unconscious
bias
against
minority
groups.
So
the
question
is, if not the IAT, how
else might we go about
quantifying the phenomenon
of implicit bias? In order to
arrive at a more rigorous
demonstration, I think the
neurobiological
findings
by University of Southern
California
neuroscientist
Antonio
Damasio
should
be
considered.
According
to
his
somatic
marker
hypothesis,
our
rational
deliberation of options is not
a purely indifferent process,
devoid
of
any
emotional
content.
Instead,
certain
outcomes are “marked” by
physiological
responses
according
to
our
own
mindset and experiences.
Under this framework, a
demonstration
of
implicit
bias becomes clear. Imagine
a
manager
who,
in
two
separate
cases,
considers
whether to call police on
someone who has entered
their establishment without
ordering anything. If the
physiological responses of
such a decision, or something
like it, could be measured
(say, by using galvanic skin
detectors,
which
measure
our
stress
response),
we
might
have
objective
evidence
that
negative
emotions
underlie
our
seemingly bias-free decisions
when
race
is
involved.
Unlike
the
psychometric
IAT test, which relies on
the circumstantial fact of
delayed response, I think
such a physiological result
could provide a definitive
measure of implicit bias.
That said, I encourage
everyone to take the IAT
for themselves and grapple
with the question of what
scientific result constitutes
direct evidence of negative
racial bias. To reiterate, I feel
that we haven’t yet arrived
at an objective standard to
definitively say that a certain
individual is “unconsciously
racist.”
A
scientific,
and
strictly
neurobiological,
approach
might
someday
take us there. The history
of America has been fraught
with
racial
strife
and
injustice for a majority of its
history; let’s all contribute
to progress by tackling these
difficult questions with an
open and deliberative mind.
Pretend Politics
Emma Chang can be reached at
emmacha@umich.edu
Farid Alsabeh can be reached at
falsabeh@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters
to the editor and op-eds. Letters should
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the
writer’s full name and University affiliation to
emmacha@umich.edu
The science behind implicit bias by Farid Alsabeh continued below: