Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
5A — Tuesday, September 4, 2018

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

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

Examining “Crazy Rich Asians”
“C

razy Rich Asians” has 
been a smash hit this 
summer. Not only 
are many of my Asian American 
peers hailing it as a fantastic movie 
that gives Asian Americans the 
representation they need, but it’s the 
first Hollywood film featuring an 
all Asian-American cast since “The 
Joy Luck Club,” which was released 
25 years ago. It’s not hard to see why 
so many people are excited about it.
The stars of the film are 
also aware of its impact. In an 
interview on “Jimmy Kimmel 
Live,” Awkwafina, who plays Peik 
Lin Goh in the movie, said about the 
lack of Asian Americans in films: 
“If you think about it ... a 25-year-
old adult is just walking around 
without representation.” She then 
went on to speak more about “Crazy 
Rich Asians,” saying that “it’s so 
impactful for Asian Americans. 
Asian Americans come out of the 
screenings, and they’re, you know, 
crying, and they don’t know exactly 
why. And I think it’s the power of 
representation.”
However, despite how easy it is 
to just praise “Crazy Rich Asians” 
as a film with representation, it’s 
important to examine the film 
not only from an Asian-American 
perspective, but also from the 
perspective of people who are of 
Asian descent, but not American.
I stumbled across a Facebook 
post 
by 
activist 
Sangeetha 
Thanapal, 
who 
criticized 
the 
movie. She wrote: “Singapore is a 
terribly racist country. The state 
embarked on a form of eugenics 
in the 1980s meant to displace its 
indigenous population and replace 
it with settler colonial Chinese 
people ... So when you celebrate 
this movie, ask yourself who 
you are complicit in erasing.” Her 
boldest statement, however, comes 
when 
she 
explicitly 
criticizes 
Asian Americans’ willingness to 
celebrate the movie’s cast: “CRA 
is set in Singapore and only has 
Chinese people in it. This isn’t 
new or refreshing, this is the 
EVERYDAY FUCKIN LIVES OF 
MINORITIES. It is only diversity 

FOR YOU.”
In an article he wrote in The 
Atlantic, Mark Tseng-Putterman 
explores 
the 
same 
kinds 
of 
problems with “Crazy Rich Asians” 
as Thanapal, stating that “while 
the cast includes a mix of Chinese, 
Japanese and Korean diaspora 
actors of various nationalities, 
besides Henry Golding (who is of 
Iban descent) it effectively excludes 
South and Southeast Asians despite 
their deep presence in Singaporean 
society.” He also points out that “the 
only South Asians that viewers can 
glimpse are in the roles of servants 
and guards.”

I 
admittedly 
don’t 
know 
anything about racial and cultural 
tensions in Singapore, and I haven’t 
even watched the movie yet. While 
some may argue that it’s simply a 
romantic comedy and such movies 
need not be taken seriously, it’s 
impossible 
to 
simultaneously 
praise a movie for its representation 
while blatantly ignoring its lack of 
representation in a non-American 
context. We can’t ignore that this 
film celebrates Chinese privilege 
and the oppression of Singaporeans 
in the same way that so many 
Hollywood films emphasize white 
privilege and completely disregard 
people of color.
It’s also incredibly problematic 
to praise a film’s representation 
by simply looking at the actors’ 
ethnicities: Casting a person of 
color means nothing if the depiction 
of their character serves the same 
purpose that excluding minorities 
does. People of color should not 
settle for simply having non-

white representation. We need to 
look beyond an actor’s race and 
examine the character: Do they 
embody harmful stereotypes, such 
as the “socially incompetent Asian 
American” or “angry Black woman” 
tropes? Does the character serve the 
role of being “one of the good ones” 
by catering to white expectations 
and distancing themselves from 
the “bad” people of color, as Tseng-
Putterman argues that “Crazy Rich 
Asians” is guilty of? Not asking 
ourselves these types of questions 
and instead mindlessly celebrating 
representation leaves us vulnerable 
to ignorance and complicity.
However, that is not to say 
that everyone who feels validated 
by “Crazy Rich Asians” should 
feel ashamed for liking it, and we 
certainly 
shouldn’t 
ignore 
the 
positive aspects of the movie. It 
makes sense that so many Asian 
Americans are so emotional about 
the film — we’re used to not seeing 
a single person of Asian descent in 
a leading role, much less an entire 
cast of them. We’re used to seeing 
Asian Americans being portrayed 
as unattractive characters who 
are 
almost 
always 
incredibly 
submissive and shy or nerdy and 
weird. “Crazy Rich Asians” defies 
these stereotypes with its cast of 
Asian American actors who all 
portray characters with actual 
personalities. It’s impossible to 
refer to any of them as “the Asian 
one” because they’re all Asian. 
This means that the audience has 
to actually see past the characters’ 
race and remember them for their 
other qualities.
Despite all of its great qualities, 
however, I’m wary of supporting 
a 
film 
that 
celebrates 
Asian 
Americans at the expense of other 
Asians. I probably will end up 
watching it illegally online or on 
Netflix, depending on where it 
becomes available first. Still, I don’t 
think I’ll end up idolizing the movie 
like so many of my peers have done. 
That’s a good thing.

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

The virtues of McCain

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

S

en. John McCain, R-Ariz., 
sadly passed away last 
week 
after 
a 
yearlong 
battle with brain cancer, marking 
the end of the illustrious life 
of one of the country’s most 
respected legislators. McCain’s 
death evoked widespread tribute 
that transcended partisan and 
ideological lines. Among the 
many who mourned McCain’s 
passing were several of his 
former rivals and opponents, 
including Joe Biden, George Bush 
and Barack Obama, the latter two 
of which delivered eulogies at 
his funeral. Though my political 
views and McCain’s diverged 
frequently, I too admire him and 
will miss the dignity, civility and 
integrity which came to define 
his career.
McCain 
brought 
ambition 
and fire to Washington, D.C., but 
he also brought character. Some 
of McCain’s most extraordinary 
moments came in the many 
instances in which he bucked 
party or popular opinion in his 
pursuit of decency, no matter the 
political cost. At a campaign rally 
during the 2008 presidential race, 
he famously rebuffed a woman 
who called then-Senator Barack 
Obama an “Arab” and another 
supporter who said he was 
“scared” of Obama’s supposed 
ulterior motives. A decade later, 
we 
can 
appreciate 
McCain’s 
decision to quell these baseless 
sentiments rather than exploit 
them for political gain as several 
others have.
McCain’s 
commitment 
to 
character and civility was not 
limited to the campaign trail. 
On Capitol Hill, he led the 
condemnation 
of 
torture 
and 
enhanced interrogation techniques 
by the CIA, drawing on his past 
experiences as a prisoner of war 
in Vietnam to affirm that morality 
is not malleable. He provided 

leadership on many legislative 
issues, 
including 
defense 
and 
national 
security 
issues, 
but 
also in areas less popular with 
his Republican colleagues, like 
campaign finance reform. His 
prioritization of duty ahead of 
political expediency occasionally 
put him at odds with his own 
party, such as with his “no” vote 
on the “skinny repeal” health 
care bill in 2017, which killed 
GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare. 
Unlike several of his colleagues 
who also voiced severe concerns 
over that bill, McCain refused to 
bow to immense political pressure 
to support the bill, exemplifying 
his unyielding commitment to do 
what he thought was right and his 
refreshing disinterest in political 
ramifications. 
McCain 
was 
certainly an effective legislator, but 
he will be remembered not only 
for his accomplishments, but also 
for how he achieved them: with 
civility, candor and character.
Regrettably, these virtues are 
increasingly rare in our current 
political landscape. There seem 
to be few remaining members 
of Congress and public officials 
who command the bipartisan 
admiration and respect, much 
less to the extent that McCain 
did. In many ways, McCain’s 
death appears to mark the end of a 
broader era, as our nation’s politics 
continue a descent into bluster and 
rancor. The 2018 midterm elections 
serve as an exodus for many 
moderating, civil voices. Several 
Republicans with reputations for 
decorum, including Sen. Jeff Flake, 
R-Ariz., and Sen. Bob Corker, 
R-Tenn., are stepping down. On the 
Democratic side, few are retiring, 
but the party’s current civil war 
between the establishment and 
progressives has seen progressives 
supplant several more moderate 
Democrats, including incumbent 
Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., who was 

unseated by Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez. Ideological battles and 
heated campaigns are a staple of 
democracy and to be expected, 
but we must not let civility and 
character become relics of the past.
Regardless of how the midterms 
play out, Congress will have quite a 
few newcomers in 2019. Whether 
they embrace the sense of duty and 
honor embodied by John McCain 
or succumb to the incivility remains 
to be seen, but the early signs aren’t 
great. Kelli Ward, a former GOP 
primary candidate in Arizona’s 
Senate race, had the audacity to 
claim that McCain’s decision to end 
medical treatment was timed to 
hurt her campaign. At the state level, 
Kansas 
gubernatorial 
candidate 
Kris Kobach allegedly hired staffers 
associated with white supremacist 
groups. In this era of American 
politics, demagogues are far more 
common, and often more successful, 
than principled statesmen.
John 
McCain’s 
legacy 
of 
putting country first is one that 
we must strive to recreate. In 
a way, it is paradoxical that 
we widely recognize McCain’s 
virtues yet routinely support 
those who fail to emulate them. 
Politicians who fail to rise above 
the 
fray 
legitimize 
extreme 
sentiments and contribute little 
to the national discussion.
Those who are unwilling to 
move beyond rhetoric, partisan 
loyalty and ideological crusades 
once in office are not worthy of 
our votes. One does not need to 
be a moderate or even a maverick 
to emulate the virtues of McCain. 
McCain leaves behind a void 
of decency and respect in our 
politics, and ultimately it is our 
responsibility to fill it.

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU

Data protection is a national priority

ALEXANDER SATOLA | COLUMN

T

he tide is finally turning 
for 
consumer 
data 
protection in the United 
States, and though internet users 
may have been aware that their 
activity was being tracked online, 
recent developments have shown 
just how much personal data the 
tech industry collects and shares 
about its users. As people growing 
up in the turbulent digital age, 
college students are at the forefront 
of a sea of change in the future of 
big data.
In 
June, 
the 
California 
Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 
passed through the California 
legislature. 
The 
law 
offers 
consumers 
more 
transparency 
over the use and transfer of their 
personal data, including the right 
to know what types of information 
companies collect about them, 
as well as the recipients of that 
information. A pivotal provision 
in the bill is the “private right of 
action,” which permits consumer 
lawsuits in the case of a traditional 
data breach, such as the T-Mobile 
data breach in August that exposed 
the personal information of 2 
million people. The law, subject to 
amendments, will enter into effect 
in January 2020.
The legislation, however, is 
weak compared to the behemoth 
European 
Union-sponsored 
General 
Data 
Protection 
Regulation that entered into effect 
this May. It gives consumers an 
unprecedented amount of control 
over their personal data, how it is 
used and who is allowed to use it. 
Crucially, it lets regulators levy 
massive fines up to 20 million euros 
or 4 percent of global turnover — 
whichever is higher — if companies 
break the rules. Under prior 
legislation, Facebook was fined 
£500,000 (about $700,000) for its 
role in improperly transferring the 
private information of 87 million 
users to Cambridge Analytica, a 
political consulting firm. Under 
the GDPR, the fine would have 
been equal to four percent of global 
turnover, or, put more simply, £1.4 
billion (about $1.96 billion).
Facing these new regulatory 
threats, 
tech 
companies 
are 
intensifying legal action within 
an already massive framework. 
Facebook, for example, spent more 
on lobbying in the first quarter of 

2018 than ever before, dangling 
$3.3 million in front of lawmakers 
to influence policy, according to a 
Senate filing. Facebook CEO Mark 
Zuckerberg and his colleagues are 
lobbying Congress to draft a new 
federal data privacy law, one that 
would hopefully kill two birds with 
one stone: erasing the California 
legislation and putting in place 
regulations that are friendlier to 
their data mining practices.
If we have learned anything 
from the revelations of Cambridge 
Analytica, the use of targeted 
advertising to unfairly influence 
the 
2016 
presidential 
election 
and the irresponsibility of tech 
companies that process our personal 
information, then it is time we call for 
federal data protection without the 
outsized influence of Silicon Valley 
firms. American lawmakers should 
adopt data protection as a bipartisan 
priority because the practices of data 
mining run amok infringe on the 
liberties of ordinary Americans.
With the midterm elections 
fast approaching, citizens would 
benefit from an overarching data 
protection law. The need for 
such a law is evident, especially 
after a CNN report revealed that 
Russian-linked 
Facebook 
ads 
targeted residents of Michigan 
and Wisconsin in key demographic 
areas during the 2016 election. 
The anonymous sources in the 
report indicated the ads filled 
people’s 
feeds 
with 
racially-
tinged and anti-Muslim rhetoric. 
While there is nothing illegal 
about targeted advertising, when 
a company like Facebook allows 
the weaponization of its platform 
by 
a 
foreign 
government 
to 
influence our elections, its apathy 
is an affront to democracy. In a 
country built upon the liberty of 
the individual, tech companies’ 
treatment of their customers as 
bottomless pits of data is nothing 
less than exploitation.
Lawmakers should thus be 
skeptical of any proposal floated 
to them by an industry lobbyist. 
Facebook lobbyist Joel Kaplan 
warned the California law could 
spread to other states and act 
as a threat to the industry and a 
regulatory nightmare. To be fair, 
state legislatures would needlessly 
torture companies if they each 
implemented 
similar-but-not-

identical privacy policies. Instead, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
the 
Internet 
Association 
and 
the 
Information 
Technology 
Industry Council are all pushing 
for voluntary standards, where 
the companies would continue to 
create and enforce their own rules.
In order to ensure the privacy 
rights of all citizens, we should no 
longer accept this monopoly on 
the control of our data. The days 
of blind trust in a self-regulatory 
system for these companies are 
over, and Congress now has an 
opportunity 
to 
draft 
federal 
legislation with teeth to ensure 
the 
proper 
handling 
of 
our 
personal information. Such a law 
would reform the Federal Trade 
Commission, which is the current 
regulatory body tasked with data 
security. Born in an analog era, it 
should be reviewed for its efficacy 
in fighting data breaches in the 
digital age.
In addition, while the GDPR 
is not perfect, representatives 
in Congress should study its 
provisions for consumer-centric 
data policy with a keen eye. The 
GDPR requires organizations to 
demonstrate that they process 
data fairly, openly communicate 
with customers and employees, 
and not keep data for longer than 
required. These are common sense 
regulations that are missing in the 
U.S. on a federal level.
Congress must use the coming 
months to reflect on our national 
data 
security 
policy. 
Privacy 
rights groups in California and 
lawmakers in Brussels have made 
great progress toward a fairer 
alternative to the current situation, 
where the interests of large 
corporations prevail. However, 
there is still a lot of work to be 
done and firms such as Google 
and Facebook will fight for every 
byte of data. I do not attempt to 
demonize these companies for 
doing business. In many ways, 
big tech has improved our lives 
by connecting people around the 
world and serving as humanity’s 
largest 
pool 
of 
knowledge. 
However, their harm to society 
should not go unnoticed.

Alexander Satola can be reached 

at apsatola@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.

People of color 
should not 
settle for simply 
having non-white 
representation.

