3A — Monday, September 24, 2018
Michigan in Color
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Le: What constitutes a hate crime?

Many 
would 
agree 
no 

undergraduate 
experience 
at 

the University of Michigan is 
complete without painting the 
Rock. Last year, I painted the 
Rock for the first time as part of 
an annual event hosted by the 
Vietnamese Student Association. I 
got to meet a lot of new people and 
bond with them as we participated 
in a Wolverine tradition. I wasn’t 
able to make it to this year’s “Paint 
the Rock” event, however, and I 
soon learned of some unfortunate 
news: the freshly-painted Rock, 
which 
bore 
the 
Vietnamese 

Student Association abbreviation 
and 
the 
names 
of 
several 

members, had been defaced. The 
association posted the following 
on its Facebook page:

“On September 21, 2018, it 

came to our attention that our 
organization’s name was defaced 
on the Rock. We had painted 
‘VSA’ on all four sides of the 
Rock. We found that two sides 
were painted over with the words 
‘FUCK 12’ in yellow paint. On the 
most prominent side of the Rock, 
a painted penis defaced ‘VSA.’

This is vandalism, and this 

is a hate crime carried out by 
those with access to our campus. 
This incident is one of many 
vandalizations targeting people 
and student organizations of color 
at the University of Michigan.” 

The statement ended by calling 

VSA and allies to help repaint and 
“reclaim the Rock.”

Initially, I wasn’t sure what 

to think. I just sat in front of 
my computer, rereading VSA’s 
statement, wondering where I 
had heard this sort of rhetoric 
before.

And then it hit me.
Almost exactly a year ago, 

the Black Student Union issued 
anextremely similar statement in 
response to an incident involving 
racial slurs written on dorm room 
name tags:

“On Sept. 17, 2017, three Black 

University of Michigan students 
were 
targeted 
with 
racially 

derogatory language in the form 
of defaced name tags on their 
dorm doors. This is not only a 
crime of vandalism, but also a 
hate crime carried out by those 
with access to our campus and 
residence 
halls, 
presumably 

underclassmen students.” 

What was I to make of this? 

Did the Vietnamese Student 
Association 
knowingly 
copy 

the Black Student Association’s 
words? Or was there some 
protocol that required student 
organizations 
to 
issue 
their 

statements in a very particular 
way? I point this similarity out 
not to accuse Vietnamese Student 
Association of plagiarism, but to 
explain my confusion over the 
whole situation. 

I was also confused by how 

quickly the vandalization of the 
Rock had been labelled a hate 
crime. A hate crime is motivated 
by bias against certain groups of 
people, such as ethnic or racial 
minorities. 
Without 
knowing 

all the details, it’s difficult to 

determine whether the vandals 
specifically targeted VSA.

One might be tempted to 

draw comparisons to yet another 
incident of vandalization last 
year 
in 
which 
welcome 

messages written on the Rock by 
Assisting Latinos to Maximize 
Achievement had been defaced. 
However, one key difference is 
that the graffiti in the previous 
incident 
mentioned 
Latinos, 

whereas, in the case of the 
Vietnamese Student Association, 
there was no reference to the 
supposedly targeted group. It was 
reported “FUCK 12” had been 
painted on the Rock; considering 
that the number 12 is slang for 
“police,” it doesn’t make sense for 
the message to be directed toward 
the Vietnamese. Then again, 
vandals aren’t reasonable people 
in the first place, so maybe that’s 
a moot point.

I know I hold the unpopular 

opinion here, but I must speak my 
truth: I do not view this recent 
event as a hate crime. A crime? 
Perhaps. But a hate crime? No, not 
without more information.

Let me be clear — I’m not 

trying to invalidate anyone’s 
feelings. Vandalism is wrong, 
period. It’s a blatant show of 
disrespect. Anyone who is upset 
about this has every right to be; 
however, to call it a hate crime 
may be a bit presumptuous at this 
point. Someone covered the Rock 
in profanity. It had been painted 
by a student organization just a 
day before. That organization 
was composed of people of color. 
Maybe they were targeted, maybe 
they weren’t. I could imagine the 
same exact graffiti over anyone’s 
name, regardless of race.

Personally, I don’t feel as though 

my identity has been attacked. 
Further, if I were to call the 
incident a hate crime while there’s 
still so much unknown about it, I 
believe I would be undermining 
the experiences of those who 
have been victims of actual hate 
crimes, such as the Black students 
who had their name tags defaced 
or Assisting Latinos to Maximize 
Achievement.

The situation has me reflecting 

on my place among people of 
color. I think a big part of standing 
in solidarity with other people 
of color is recognizing their 
experiences are not necessarily 
my own. Though it’s unfortunate 
that someone painted over the 
Vietnamese Student Association’s 
name, I will not compare it to 
the racial slurs and worse that 
others on campus have endured. 
It’s my responsibility as an ally to 
understand some of the privileges 
that I have. The strength of my 
allyship isn’t based on the idea 
that I struggle in the same way 
that other people of color do, but 
on my ability to see our differences 
so that I may better understand 
and do what I can to help alleviate 
each person’s unique struggle. I 
will not exaggerate the setbacks 
that I face to validate my POC-
ness. I will not use narratives that 
do not belong to me.

Once more, I wasn’t there when 

the Rock was vandalized, and 
I don’t know who did it or why. 
The most I can do now is share 
my opinion, how I was (or wasn’t) 
affected as a member of the 
Vietnamese community. At the 
end of the day, I suppose what’s 
most important is that we get 
past it. While I don’t agree with 
all of the Vietnamese Student 
Association’s statement, at the 
very least, I’m glad that they were 
able to repaint the Rock.

ELIZABETH LE

MiC Columnist

Last 
Sunday, 
a 
screenshot 

of an email from American 
Culture 
Associate 
Professor 

John 
Cheney-Lippold 
denying 

a student’s request for a letter of 
recommendation to study abroad 
in Israel was posted on Facebook. 
The email was met with outrage 
from various Zionist groups on 
campus and students who believed 
Cheney-Lippold’s refusal to write 
the letter of recommendation 
was 
anti-Semitic. 
Boycotting 

the 
government 
of 
Israel 

should not be conflated with 
anti-Jewish 
sentiment, 
and 

Cheney-Lippold’s decision is not 
anti-Semitic because religion and 
the oppressive acts of a country’s 
government and military are two 
separate things.

In response to the outcry on 

social media, Students Allied for 
Freedom and Equality released 
a statement Tuesday reaffirming 
SAFE 
“stands 
in 
solidarity 

with students, faculty, and staff 
boycotting Israeli universities” 
and emphasized the University 
was very quick to release its own 
statement to clarify the University 
does not approve of Cheney-
Lippold’s decision and University 
departments do not officially 
boycott.

Yet, as SAFE pointed out, the 

University has never released 
a 
statement 
condemning 
the 

blacklist that many students to 
which are subjected when they 
speak in solidarity with Palestine, 
despite attention to this issue being 
brought to the administration 
countless times. In the student’s 
words, Cheney-Lippold’s response 
to her request was “disturbing 
and unsettling,” but we think 

what’s disturbing and unsettling 
is the University’s failure to 
address 
and 
accommodate 

Palestinian students’ demands 
for years, yet its willingness to 
jump to defend this student and 
condemn a professor who was 
simply holding true to his beliefs 
and solidarity with Palestinian 
people. The stark contrast in 
responses, though unsurprising, 
is too evident to ignore. Though 
one may disagree with Cheney-
Lippold’s decision, one cannot say 
his email wasn’t courteous, honest 
and explanatory.

One thing we would like to 

commend 
is 
Cheney-Lippold’s 

willingness to use his identity as 
a white man, with no formal ties 
to the Palestine-Israel conflict, to 
stand in solidarity with the people 
in Palestine. One of the platforms 
taken by the student who received 
the denial of a recommendation 
letter is the fact that her “work 
habits, diligence, and aptitude as a 
student” should have been the sole 
determinants of the professor’s 
decision to write the letter, and 
that his refusal “allowed his 
personal beliefs to interfere with 
(her) dreams of studying abroad.” 
However, this goes deeper than 
a student’s innocent “dream” to 

study abroad. The country we are 
speaking of is a country with a 
history and present of oppressing, 
murdering, stealing land from 
and denying basic rights to 
Palestinian people. The purpose 
of boycott divestment sanctions is 
to cut any and all ties that would 
support Israel’s government and 
in turn aid in perpetuating the 
violation of Palestinian rights. It 
is negligent to pretend writing 
a recommendation letter for a 
student to study there is completely 
independent and uncorrelated to 
the political climate and taking a 
stance for justice.

It is important for those 

who 
hold 
privilege 
to 
levy 

their position to help the most 
vulnerable in society. That is 
what allyhood looks like. Cheney-
Lippold could have easily refused 
the student’s request for a letter 
of 
recommendation 
and 
not 

provided any answer or provided 
a different one. Rather, Cheney-
Lippold chose to provide the 
student with an honest answer 
that sparks dialogue and causes 
the student to reflect on her 
decision to study abroad at an 
institution that perpetuates the 
oppression of a group of people. 
Furthermore, Cheney-Lippold put 
his reputation at the University 
at stake by making this decision 
and participating in the academic 
boycott.

We hope the University will 

uphold 
their 
commitment 
to 

free speech — which they have 
no problem doing when highly 
problematic and harmful speakers 
like Richard Spencer ask to express 
their dangerous views — and 
will not punish Cheney-Lippold 
or any other faculty members 
who choose to participate in 
the academic boycott of the 
government of Israel.

ANONYMOUS
MiC Contributor

Standing with Prof. Cheney-Lippold

American Culture professor 

John 
Cheney-Lippold 
of 
the 

University 
of 
Michigan 
has 

been receiving backlash from 
students, community members 
and administrators alike, with 
University Regent Denise Ilitch 
(D) going so far as to accuse 
the professor of anti-Semitism. 
These attacks come after Cheney-
Lippold, in adherence of the call 
made by Palestinian civil society 
organizations to boycott Israeli 
academic and cultural institutions, 
chose to rescind his agreement to 
write a letter of recommendation 
to LSA junior Abigail Ingber upon 
learning it would be for a study 
abroad program in Israel.

While it is unsurprising the 

University has been swift to 
criticize Cheney-Lippold for his 
decision, the University’s reaction 
to the incident demonstrates its 
ongoing complicity with and 
support for the violent Zionist 
settler colonial project. While 
masking itself in the language of 
political neutrality, the University 
willfully ignores the role of Israeli 
institutions in maintaining and 
expanding the military occupation 
of the Gaza Strip and the West 
Bank, and its settler occupation 
of historic Palestine, as well as the 
impact this has on the academic 
freedom of Palestinians.

Curtis Marez, president of the 

American Studies Association, 
notes 
Israeli 
universities 
are 

targeted by this boycott “because 
they 
work 
closely 
with 
the 

government 
and 
military 
in 

developing weapons and other 
technology that are used to 
enforce 
the 
occupation 
and 

colonization of Palestinian land, 
while 
university-associated 

think tanks develop political and 
communications 
strategies 
to 

advance government aims and 
defend them internationally.”

Furthermore, 
Marez 
notes, 

“The Israeli occupation prevents 
Palestinian 
academics 
from 

accessing outside institutions of 
higher learning and professional 
conferences, 
hampering 
their 

ability to do their work, while 
Israeli authorities make it difficult 
for foreign academics to travel 
to Gaza and the West Bank.” In 
other words, Israeli academic 
institutions are not politically 
neutral when it comes to the 

violence of the Zionist nation-
state but are a key apparatus of the 
colonial project. The University 
must consider its students and the 
broader public as naïve to believe 
its propagation of study abroad 
programs in Israel is politically 
neutral and not, in fact, a validation 
of the role of these institutions in 
the Zionist settler project. It is not 
difficult to see the role that the 
Zionist nation-state and Israeli 
academic institutions play in 
limiting the academic freedom of 
Palestinians and those supportive 
of Palestinian liberation.

This is the same University that 

swiftly refused the Central Student 
Government’s 
call 
to 
merely 

form a committee to investigate 
companies in which the University 
invests donor and student monies 
for 
potential 
relationships 

to 
Palestinian 
human 
rights 

violations, 
undermining 
both 

on-campus student governance 
and Palestinian human rights. 
University 
spokesman 
Rick 

Fitzgerald’s 
statement 
that 

“financial factors such as risk 
and return” are the sole focus 
of the University’s investments 
demonstrates 
the 
University’s 

willingness to put profit over 
morality and Palestinian life. In 
a statement, University President 
Mark 
Schlissel 
argues 
the 

previous two divestment instances 
in the University’s history — 
divestment from tobacco and 
from South African corporations 
under apartheid — were unique 
in that they “were inextricably 
linked to immoral and unethical 
actions and ideologies.” This 
grossly undermines the tangible, 
material and ongoing violence of 
Zionist colonialism, occupation, 
apartheid 
and 
displacement 

while clearly demonstrating the 
University’s — or at the very least, 
though no less consequentially, 
Schlissel’s — political position 
that the historic and ongoing 
violence and displacement of 
Palestinians and the theft of their 
land is something the University 
finds excusable and justifiable. 
The University frequently has 
betrayed its support of the violent 
political project of Zionism while 
criticizing its students, staff and 
faculty for challenging oppression 
with actions in accordance to their 
“personal views and politics.” 
The criticisms of John Cheney-
Lippold’s actions are not only 
a recent manifestation of the 
University’s complicity with this 

project, but further reflect the 
de facto political position of the 
University the supports and (given 
its 
investments) 
profits 
from 

Zionist violence and colonialism.

For all its shallow rhetorical 

concern with academic freedom, 
the University chooses to ignore 
the fact that ongoing colonialism, 
displacement, military occupation 
and apartheid policies propagated 
by 
the 
Zionist 
nation-state 

materially 
impact 
the 
ability 

of Palestinians to access such 
educational 
opportunities. 

Military checkpoints and armed 
Israeli Defense Force personnel 
disrupt Palestinians of all ages in 
their pursuit of academic success, 
often 
prohibitively 
and 
even 

lethally. According to the Institute 
for Middle East Understanding, 
a stark 50 percent of children in 
Gaza report a fear of attending 
school. During the first intifada, 
the Israeli army closed Palestinian 
universities for months. In its 2014 
offensive, Israel attacked three of 
Gaza’s seven universities, as well as 
seven United Nations schools and 
about 141 local schools. Displaced 
Palestinians 
face 
prohibitive 

restrictions which often prevent 
them from being able to return to 
Palestine, much less study there. 
Where is the University’s outrage 
for their right to education?

The University of Michigan 

already holds a de facto political 
stance supporting the violence of 
Zionist colonialism and military 
occupation. It cannot continue 
to pretend it is politically neutral 
and believe the public will be 
fooled about its political priorities 
and commitments. It’s time that 
the University not only confront 
and rectify its complicity in and 
support of such violence, but also 
take an active stand in supporting 
and working toward justice and 
liberation for the Palestinian 
people. Rather than attacking its 
own faculty for participating in 
the academic boycott of Israeli 
institutions, 
the 
University 

should acknowledge the merit 
of 
the 
boycott, 
participate 

in it and advocate for it. The 
University’s insistence that it 
is not a political institution is, 
at best, denial and, at worst, 
deception and manipulation. It’s 
time the University abandon its 
empty rhetoric and demonstrate 
a commitment to justice by 
supporting 
liberation 
for 

Palestinians.

University should support boycott 

YAHYA ALAMI HAFEZ

MiC Contributor

SAFE: In solidarity with boycotters

The 
state 
of 
Israel 

actively 
engages 
in 
human 

rights 
violations 
upon 
the 

Palestinian 
people. 
From 

daily home demolitions 
to the 

imprisonment of thousands of 
innocent civilians 
to the illegal 

construction of settlements 
on 

Palestinian land, there is no 
question of the violence and 
inequity perpetuated by settler-
colonial Israeli apartheid.

We 
support 
and 
affirm 

Professor 
John 
Cheney-

Lippold’s 
right 
to 
boycott 

Israel. His actions are the same 
demanded by Palestinian civil 
society, and serve to recognize 
and resist forces committing 
human rights violations. To 
punish 
Professor 
Cheney-

Lippold for his actions would 
curtail 
his 
own 
academic 

agency.

We also want to underscore 

the 
double 
standard 
of 

“consequences” 
faced 
by 

students 
who 
support 
the 

state of Israel. This student, 
for whatever inconveniences 
she may face in securing a 
recommendation 
letter, 
will 

undoubtedly be able to visit, 
study, and work in the country. 
We 
remind 
the 
campus 

community 
that 
Palestinian 

students 
and 
their 
allies 

continue 
to 
be 
blacklisted, 

targeted, 
and 
exiled 
from 

their home country for their 
identities 
. Palestinian students 

do not have the privilege 
of going back to Palestine, 
much less studying abroad. 
Where is the concern for their 
educational opportunities?

Finally, SAFE would like to 

question the speed and force 
with 
which 
the 
University 

administration 
and 
campus 

community 
condemned 

Professor 
Cheney-Lippold. 

For years, students at the 
University of Michigan have 
been 
consistently 
targeted 

on 
international 
political 

blacklists for standing up for 

Palestinian human rights. We 
have brought the blacklist to the 
attention of our administrators 
repeatedly. There has been no 
University statement on the 
matter. This blacklist is just one 
of several tangible barriers for 
students that will prevent them 
from engaging in not just study 
abroad programs, but academic 
programs, jobs, and admittance 
into Palestine/Israel.

It seems as though, the 

administration and community 
are 
more 
interested 
in 

punishing 
a 
professor 
for 

exercising his right to express 
political views —views that may 
offend a powerful community 
on campus—than protecting 
the physical and emotional 
safety of Palestinian students.

SAFE vows to keep elevating 

the voices of Palestinians on 
this campus and around the 
world, and to stand with those 
already doing so in meaningful 
ways.

In solidarity, Students Allied 

for Freedom and Equality

STUDENTS ALLIED FOR 
FREEDOM AND EQUALITY

“One thing we 
would like to 
commend is 

Cheney-Lippold’s 
willingness to use 

his identity as a 

white man”

COURTESY OF ALYSSA FELLABAUM

The Vietnamese Student Association repainted the Rock after inappropriate markings were found.

“Without knowing 

all the details, 
it’s difficult to 

determine whether 

the vandals 
specifically 

targeted VSA”

