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.