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.

