T
he emotional arc for every
college
student
seems
to exist in a paradoxical
state: On one hand, college is
lauded as the best time of people’s
lives, while on the other hand,
college students seem to live in a
state of existential dread about the
future. This tension is created by
the fact that college is essentially
a transitional time in people’s
lives. College students have one
foot firmly planted in childhood,
when the main concern in life is
still school, while the other foot
is in mid-air, charging towards
the future. After all, college is
supposed to be the time when
people really pick what they want
to do with their lives.
The looming question of the
future seems to arise in every
decision that we make. Is this
really the thing I want to study?
What can I do with a degree
in this? Will I really make new
friends after college or is my social
life mostly downhill from here? Is
this the last chance I have to pick
up a new skill or hobby? (Maybe I
should go to the next kayak club
meeting?) Who do I want to be
and how the hell am I going to get
there?
The most common way of
discussing
and
dealing
with
this anxiety is to discuss career
paths. If I can figure out my job,
then I can begin to craft a vision
of myself around that. It seems
like, for many college students, if
there is a specific path and vision
of a career, then the big decisions
made in college can be navigated
with a greater degree of certainty
and ease. I feel like I have heard
people say something along the
lines of the following a million
times: “If I study computer
science, get certain grades and
get certain internships over the
summers, then I know that I will
be able to get a job that pays a good
amount of money, has a workplace
environment I like and is in a cool/
hip city.”
This
orientation
toward
college, however, follows a very
odd temporal structure. Rather
than beginning with things that
happened in the past, or even
the feelings occupied in the
present, this orientation creates
a futuristic vision of the self
and works backward in time
toward the now. This process
of prioritizing a future self over
a current one creates a massive
amount of accompanying anxiety
about crafting this future self.
Don’t read me as advocating
that students should only think
about the present. A student
who doesn’t create this complex
chain of projection has anxiety
of a different sort, an anxiety of
the present, rather than of the
future. For a student like myself,
who studies philosophy, there is
not a clear path for me into the
working world; there is no Silicon
Valley of philosophy. Instead
of spending every day fearing
I won’t reach my goals, I spend
every day wondering what the
hell I am actually doing. Should I
have chosen to study something
that will help me more in a future
career? Could my prioritization of
what I am doing now really just be
a form of naivete?
Recently, I went to my older
brother’s Friendsgiving event,
which featured a series of post-
college 20-something-year-olds
who were all trying to make
sense of post-college life. When
this topic of conversation arose
(namely, what the hell I plan on
doing after college), it seemed
that every person in the room
quickly became an expert on the
topic. All of my brother’s friends
came from a place of caring, and
they did genuinely want to share
the knowledge they’d gained
from their experiences with me.
In this process of “helping” me,
however, one thing became very
clear to everyone in the room:
The line between generalized
advice and self-projection was
thin.
In all fairness, the discussion
we had was definitely thought-
provoking and got me thinking
about what other conversations
I have had about career paths.
I quickly realized that my
critique,
that
people
were
mainly just guiding me into an
edited version of their path, is
the case for most conversations
about career paths. After all, our
society trains people to consider
their career above all else, so
what advice could people really
give me that is beyond their
personal experiences?
To further complicate the whole
situation, this form of projecting
is actually what students, like
the earlier described computer
science student, are looking for —
a clear, replicable path to follow.
College students will always think
anxiously about their future and
seek advice that can bring release
from this anxiety, so maybe
what needs to change is not the
occurrence of the conversation
but rather how we engage in the
conversation.
Maybe students shouldn’t be
concerned with what specific
things people did in their careers
to push them “to the next level,”
but rather what life decisions
people
have
made
that
felt
important.
The
conversation
should expand from discussing
the minutiae of career strategies
to something of the larger game of
life these decisions are occurring
in. Instead of asking for and giving
prescriptions, we should all be
discussing how our life decisions
influence
fluctuations
in
our
anxieties.
I
n the Trump era, whether to
support Israel or not is becoming
an increasingly partisan issue in
American politics. Israel’s designation
as a partisan issue has highlighted a
bizarre association: white nationalists
vocally
supporting
Israel,
even
calling themselves Zionists of sorts.
Richard Spencer, in an interview
with an Israeli journalist, called
himself a “white Zionist” because he
believes white people should have a
homogenous homeland in America.
Nationalists elsewhere, like Viktor
Orban of Hungary, who are pursuing
highly nationalistic agendas that seek
to exclude minorities, also support
Israel. In a weird twist, Orban, widely
seen as anti-Semitic, is strongly pro-
Israel. Nationalists support Israel to
justify their own nationalist visions.
If Israel can be a nation-state founded
on an ethno-religious identity, then
so too can America, or Hungary, or
any country, pursue an exclusionary
national identity. To some, the
support nationalists espouse for Israel
proves the most biting criticism of
Israel — that its very existence as
a Jewish majority state is racist, as
was asserted in UN Resolution 3379
and by the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions movement. That is, Israel’s
existence as a Jewish state is racist
and colonialist in the same way
Richard Spencer’s call for America to
be a white homeland is racist.
However, this criticism of Israel
is flawed. Zionism is fundamentally
different
than
the
prejudicial
nationalisms of far-right movements
all around the world. Zionism
emerged as a solution to anti-
Semitism, and today it is the best
and only solution to anti-Semitism.
There is a clear difference between
Jews wanting a state as a source of
sanctuary and defense against anti-
Semitism and the racist visions of
Richard Spencer.
Zionism was a response to the
very European nationalism and
anti-Semitism
which
nationalists
like Orban and Richard Spencer
echo today. In the 1800s, Jews were
emancipated in parts of Western
Europe, meaning they were given
citizenship and rights for the first time
after a long history of persecution.
In Eastern Europe, Jews were not
emancipated and suffered violent
pogroms and attacks. Emancipation
in countries like France gave Jews
hope that if they were assimilated
they would not be persecuted.
Theodor Herzl, seen as the founder of
modern Zionism, originally thought
the solution to anti-Semitism was for
Jews to be baptized like Christians
were.
But it was the infamous Dreyfus
affair, when a French Jewish military
officer was wrongly blamed for
treason because he was Jewish, that
changed Herzl’s mind. Herzl, after
witnessing anti-Semitic mobs in the
streets of Paris, realized the Jews
could not count on assimilation to
protect them from anti-Semitism.
This was proven to be true when
the Nazis committed genocide and
murdered two-thirds of European
Jewry, regardless of if they were
assimilated or not.
Anti-Semitism is not a matter of
the past. In 2014, the Anti-Defamation
League concluded that 26 percent
of the world’s population held anti-
Semitic beliefs. Anti-Semitism is on
the rise in both Europe and America,
the places where the most Jews live
outside of Israel. Rising anti-Semitism
has been a concern in Europe for
a while now. What is new is the
rising anti-Semitism in America. As
political scientist Fareed Zakaria said,
“For over 2,500 years Jews have been
vilified and persecuted everywhere,
and then came Israel and America.”
Yet, anti-Semitic hate crimes
in America are up 57 percent and
half of all religious hate crimes are
against Jews, despite Jews making up
under two percent of the American
population. A neo-Nazi running for
Congress in Illinois won 26 percent of
the vote. And of course, there was the
Pittsburgh shooting. America might
still overall be a safe place for Jews,
but the fact that the Holocaust started
in Germany — then considered one
of the least anti-Semitic European
countries — should serve as a
reminder that anti-Semitism can
emerge in deadly form anywhere.
Anti-Semitism has staying power
because of its historic prevalence in
European thought. Anti-Semitism
developed as a sort of ideological
means of scapegoating and opposing
perceived
change
in
European
societies. In “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion,” an infamous anti-
Semitic text published by Russian
military officers in the early 1900s,
Jews are blamed for all “ideas”
which challenged the Tsar. Jews
in Europe were depicted as being
the progenitors of capitalism and
communism, depending on which
system the bigot disliked. That’s
why anti-Semites today, like the
Pittsburgh shooter, blame Jews for
whatever changes in society they
dislike, whether its refugees or
globalization. The white nationalists
in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will
not replace us,” alleging that Jews
were conspiring to replace white
people with minorities. Having a
country where Jews have the right
to live and defend themselves is
necessary to ensure the continuity of
Judaism, given the brutal history and
continuity of anti-Semitism.
Zionists today should remember
that Zionism was originally an
instrument against anti-Semitism,
rather than an end in and of itself.
Religious Zionism and expansionism
stray from Zionism’s original moral
justifications. Zionism should not be a
fixed ideology unable to change in the
future. If animosity between Israelis
and Palestinians abated significantly, a
binational state in which Palestinians
and Israelis are equal citizens could
be congruous with Zionism’s goal
of ensuring the survival of Judaism.
Both Palestinians and Israelis could
have the right of return. Governance
could be structured in a power-
sharing agreement or a confederate
system. But today, a binational state
would mean more bloodshed and
suffering for both sides. The conflict,
for which both sides share blame,
has produced an animus on the part
of Israelis and Palestinians which
would take generations to heal. A
two-state solution, for now, is thus the
best option.
Criticisms of policies by the Israeli
government like settlements are totally
valid and necessary. But the volume
and intensity of Israel criticism often
reflects or is directly motivated by the
idea that Israel’s very existence is racist
and illegitimate. There is a panoply of
situations similar to Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. None of them elicit outrage
or concern in any way comparable to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These
situations include but are not limited to:
China and the Tibetans and Uighurs,
Morocco and West Saharans, Turkey
and the Kurds and the Sinhalese
and Tamils. Yet, there are no calls to
boycott these countries, nor are there
professors denying students letters of
recommendation to these countries
for political reasons. People single out
Israel as a racist, colonialist state while
ignoring the three two-state offers the
Israeli government has made in the last
20 years.
In an age of “alternatives truths”
there is a lot to be upset about. We
should be careful how we spend
our attention and outrage. Taking
the bait white nationalists lay out —
and Israel’s harshest critics ascribe
to — of equating Zionism with the
exclusionary nationalist visions of
white supremacists would be a huge
mistake.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A —Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
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
REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN
Why college students are always anxious
Zionism and racism
AARON BAKER | COLUMN
Reed Rosenbacher can be reached
at rrosenb@umich.edu.
Aaron Baker can be reached at
aaronbak@umich.edu.
T
he ideology of moral
relativism is a common
theme among today’s
college-aged youth.
Phrases
such
as
“live
your
truth”
as well as maxims
that
prioritize
individuality,
autonomy and self
definition above all
other values have
swept youth culture.
This philosophy has
been largely painted
in a positive light as
the philosophy of diversity and
inclusion, a philosophy that
finally allows for every person
to truly be themself, and it is
largely associated with the
political left. Yet this ideology
of moral relativism could have
dangerous consequences that
affect the very moral fiber of
society. In a culture where
there is no objective truth,
and everybody is free to define
what is right for themselves,
where do we end up? If we
draw moral relativism out
to
its
logical
conclusion,
any number of frightening
possibilities become a reality.
My peers exemplify moral
relativism
when
they
say
things
such
as:
“I
don’t
believe we can define the
truth,” “everything we think
we know is nothing more than
a social construct” or “our
experiences are all individual
and therefore none of us has
the right to judge anyone else’s
decisions.” These such beliefs
have led them to conclude that
there are in fact no objective
truths and that there is not
an objective morality; “live
and let live,” as the old saying
goes.
While, on its face, this
ideology seems harmless and
maybe even admirable, there
are some deep issues that can
arise in a world where we tell
everyone that the only person
they are accountable to is
themself. When one applies
this ideology to simple things
such as how to dress or what
to eat, maybe it is harmless.
However, when we apply this
ideology
to
greater
moral
debates, we see that it falls flat.
Let’s take the infamous case
of Rachel Dolezal, the white
woman who became the head
of the Spokane chapter of the
NAACP by claiming she was
Black. Few people feel that it
was OK for her to appropriate
Black culture the way that she
did, but if we believe that the
only person who can define
what is right or wrong for
her life is herself, then who
are we to judge? Maybe she
can “identify” as Black as
she so claims. Maybe then,
when it suits us, we all can
identify as whatever we like.
She claims her ethnic identity
isn’t harming anyone else, and
while there are arguments
to be made to the contrary,
in a world where we claim
morality is relative anyway,
then who can truly condemn
her? If we believe there is no
objective morality, and no
objective truths such as one’s
biological ethnicity,
then
condemning
anyone for ethnic
or
cultural
appropriation
becomes
a
hypocritical
and
moot point. In a
world where there is
no truth, there is no
right or wrong.
The truth is that
while
our
youth
are constantly saying things
like “live your truth,” they
aren’t living up to the true
meaning
of
that
ideology.
They
aren’t
condoning
all
sorts of previously condemned
actions such as the racial
appropriation
mentioned
above. They are, if anything,
more polarized and critical
than ever. As a society, we
are
constantly
condemning
our political adversaries as
“immoral,” and I can’t help
but note the inconsistency
of
these
two
competing
ideologies that are attempting
to coexist side by side on the
liberal side of the aisle. My
friend might tell me to live
my individual truth when we
disagree on something they
deem insignificant and, in the
next breath, tell me that my
pro-life stance is “morally”
harmful to women.
The objective truth is that
inherently
we
all
believe
in some measure of right
or wrong, which comes out
in the form of the truth
claims we make on a day-
to-day basis. No matter how
philosophical we attempt to
be, or how much we attempt
to understand the complexity
of the human experience, we
know that there are objective
truths, and this is a good
thing. When young liberals
and/or Democrats claim to
believe in moral relativism,
they undermine their claims
to being the party of human
rights
and
social
justice,
because if morality, dignity
and equality aren’t inherent
qualities that we all possess,
and are nothing more than a
social construct, then they
really don’t exist at all! They
are as fragile as the whims
of our culture. If tomorrow
somebody
comes
to
me
claiming that “women belong
in the kitchen,” I can’t tell
them this is a backwards and
oppressive ideology because
that is their truth. There is no
oppression in a world without
truth because oppression can
only occur when somebody’s
freedom, dignity and equality
are being infringed upon. If
these are nothing more than
relative
social
constructs,
however, then the “oppressor”
can simply claim his actions
exist within the realms of his
version of the truth and are
therefore morally permissible.
In fact, this is almost exactly
what the Nazi lawyers tried to
claim in the Nuremberg trials,
that they were just living out
the ideology of their cultural
beliefs
and
therefore,
the
rest of the world could not
condemn them.
It
may
be
convenient
to
claim
that
truth
is
relative in an increasingly
politically-correct collegiate
environment,
where
safe
spaces and trigger warnings
are common talking points,
but if the left wants to cling
to moral relativism, then
they will have to learn to
let their “safe spaces” go,
because on a campus where
any truth, any conspiracy
theory and any wild claim
is true as long as I believe
it is, then there are no safe
spaces at all. Liberal colleges
are on one hand becoming
an
echo
chamber
where
only liberal viewpoints are
accepted
as
“right”
and
“moral” and yet, on the other
hand,
these
same
“social
justice warriors” are patting
each other on the back for
not oppressing one another
with objective morality. It’s
a huge hypocrisy of today’s
new leftist movement.
While we should always be
wary of those who attempt to
oppress us with their versions
of “the truth” that may not be
decidedly true at all, if we
believe that truth, justice and
morality exist, we can keep
seeking after them. We, as the
next generation of difference
makers, can seek to live up to
the creed of “all men created
equal” that is laid out in the
U.S. Constitution. Because,
while it may not have been
truthfully
fulfilled
when
written, due to our belief
in the inherent dignity and
equality of man, we can
fight for the realization of
this equality. However, if we
forego morality and truth,
we have no ground to stand
on
to
fight
for
equality,
justice or any other form of
human rights. That is why
we shouldn’t allow moral
relativism to permeate our
society fully. We can be more
inclusive and tolerant than
past
generations
without
foregoing
our
beliefs
in
objective truths and morality.
In fact, we need these beliefs
to truly be inclusive and
tolerant at all.
ABBIE BERRINGER | COLUMN
The danger of “living your truth”
Abbie Berringer can be reached at
abbierbe@umich.edu.
In a world where
there is no truth,
there is no right or
wrong
ABBIE
BERRINGER
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.