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”