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.