current moment, not a debate. The
second part of the event featured
a
workshop
for
developing
policy recommendations for the
University.
“This
event
is
first
and
foremost a proactive, student-
generated
response
to
the
administration’s call to gather
input from stakeholders across
the University, and its primary
objective is to gain insights
and
recommendations
from
a
diverse,
multidisciplinary,
intergenerational
and
multi-
ranked
community
for
our
provost panel’s consideration,”
De la Cruz said.
The first panelist, Howard
Brick,
professor
in
the
Department
of History, provided a brief
overview of political regulation
at the University in the 20th
century. He noted the American
Association
of
University
Professors’
declaration
of
principles on academic freedom
and academic tenure in relation
to the University’s history with
social activism. Brick highlighted
the precarity of the AAUP’s
1970 revision of the 1940
Statement of Principles on
Academic
Freedom
and
Tenure, explaining how many
components are undefined of
what constitutes academic
freedom versus violation.
“The point was not to avoid
controversy, but in fact, the
1970 statement said that the
scholar could be controversial
and polemical provided he or
she was being so for the sake
of facing scholarship,” he said.
Brick considered periods
in
which
the
University
repressed faculty based on
social
or
political
views,
drawing from war periods and
the Cold War. He compared
these to the social issues faced
today on campus and the
AAUP’s letter statement.
“It
may
be
a
little
discomforting to recognize
that
oddly
enough,
the
question of whether one has
the right to deny a letter of
recommendation on grounds
other than solely merit,” he
said. “It turns up here in
the letter, in the context, of
course, we would not approve
regarding the disciplining
of a student, which only
shows how these questions
of academic freedom are so
fraught and dependent on
context, and not fixed by
nature as an absolute.”
The
second
panelist,
Chandler
Davis,
was
a
University professor in the ’50s
and was given a subpoena from
the
House
Un-American
Activities
Committee
along
with three other U-M faculty
for being branded a communist.
Davis refused to answer HUAC
questions, pleading the Fifth
Amendment in the hopes of
being convicted and appealing
the case to the Supreme Court to
protest against the government-
sponsored
anti-communist
campaign. Davis was ultimately
fired from the University, lost his
appeal to the Supreme Court and
served a six-month sentence in
prison.
“Any faculty member refusing
to answer questions before the
red hunter committees created
a
presumption
of
unfitness,
I
summarize
the
plight
administrators face this way:
They hoped there were no reds
on the faculty, they hoped nobody
would ask them if they were, but
if the inquisitors obliged them
to fire a red they would go along
wholeheartedly,” Davis said.
The third speaker, Alan Wald,
a professor emeritus of American
Culture and English, compared
his social activism as a professor
in the ’70s and ’80s against
apartheid in South Africa and that
of the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions movement in regard to
Israel. According to Wald, both
movements focused on economic
targeting and have a history of
colonization at the root of the
problem. He also acknowledged
the implications and history of
the oppression of Jewish people
searching
for
survival
upon
coming to Israel, and explained
how discourse at the University
is vital to understanding the
multifaceted issue.
“I’ve
heard
it
mentioned
that everybody supported the
anti-apartheid struggle,” Wald
said. “That’s as misleading as
imagining that the beginning
of the movement against the
war in Vietnam that everybody
supported it. The battle for
divestment from apartheid went
on for close to 20 years, day in
and day out for the core activists
and U-M was far behind many
universities.
Despite
nearly
ubiquitous
news coverage and relatively
civil negotiations, New York
state troopers came in with
force. The troopers tortured the
inmates but would come to deny
such proceedings. There were 39
fatalities.
“This
book
is
about
the
uprising, but it was also about
the coverup,” Thompson.
Thompson spent 13 years
researching and writing “Blood
in the Water”. New York sealed
their archives regarding the
Attica
riot,
so
Thompson
said she had to retrieve the
information in a roundabout
way.
“The
thing
about
being
a historian, it’s like being a
detective,” Thompson said. “You
have to think about where’s the
secret. Who knows where the
sources are? That’s the fun part.
It’s amazing how creative you
can be. Believe me, the stuff is
there. You just have to look for
it.”
Thompson looked at union
records for prison guards and
coroner’s reports for autopsies.
She interviewed inmates, prison
guards
and
state
troopers
alike in order to offer every
perspective.
“Who’s really telling the truth
of the narrative?” Thompson
said. “That’s kind of the most
vexing thing.”
Thompson said she views it as
her responsibility as a historian
to tell stories comprehensively
to the best of her ability. She
said this is compounded by her
privilege as a white woman
covering such volatile research
regarding race and ethnicity.
She assured the audience that
she is “not pretending that it’s
my story.”
“I see that as a privilege, but
I also see it as an obligation
to figure out what the hell
happened and report back,”
Thompson said.
Thompson’s
work
revolves
around this idea of responsibility
to find the truth. Her favorite
kind of writing is not weighty,
academic
works,
but
rather
breaking news opinion pieces
regarding
current
affairs.
Thompson called this her work
as a public intellectual and
describes it as trying “to correct
the record in the moment.”
Thompson writes often on
issues
regarding
police
and
prisons. Public Policy junior
Bhavya
Sukhavasi
said
she
enjoyed the fact that Thompson
delved into this aspect of her
work at the event.
“It isn’t just about writing a
professional book, but writing
just day-to-day,” Sukhavasi said.
Thompson told the audience
about
an
opportunity
that
she had to write an op-ed
for
The
New
York
Times
regarding a recent prison riot
in South Carolina. She publicly
condemned the story of the
police — claiming they were not
telling the whole truth.
Following
the
release
of
Thompson’s
op-ed,
inmates
came forward with videos from
inside the prison during the riots
that confirmed the misdeeds
of the police. Thompson said
she enjoys being able to write
important
stories
using
her
historical expertise in order to
facilitate a dialogue about the
issues at hand.
“There’s
no
choice,”
Thompson said. “You weigh in
now or you don’t. You write now
or you don’t.”
It is with this courage that
Thompson advised her students
to write. She said she is happiest
when it seems her students
portray “a confidence to have
some mastery of the sources
rather than the sources master
them.”
“They need to just have some
confidence in their own voice,”
Thompson said. “You kind of
have to have a little bit of that
bravery to step in front of it like
that.”
Julie
Babcock,
a
lecturer
in
Sweetland
Center
for
Writing said as an educator,
she reverberated Thompson’s
sentiments
regarding
the
necessity for students to present
confidence in their writing.
“We
want
to
hear
your
thoughts, and we want to see you
engage in such conversations,”
Babcock said.
In sharing her experience,
Thompson said she finds one
of her most important roles is
instilling hope in her students
suffering the frustrations of
entering into writing.
“It’s so overwhelming when
you’re in it,” Thompson said.
“It’s important that students
understand
all
the
barriers
you have also faced and how
you overcame them to kind
of brainstorm strategies for
moving forward.”
Thompson
is
currently
researching for her next book
on the bombing of a building
housing MOVE Black liberation
activists in Philadelphia in the
spring of 1985. This past year,
she was awarded the Bearing
Witness
Writing
Fellowship
from the Ford Foundation’s Art
of Justice Fund to allow her to
conduct more research. Next
year, she will be teaching at
Cambridge University and she
plans to release her next book in
about three years.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, November 28, 2018 — 3A
PULITZER
From Page 1A
interview. “I find those results
encouraging - they are a valuable
reminder that most people don’t
follow politics very closely and
that many democratic norms
still enjoy bipartisan support.”
Both representatives from the
University’s chapter of College
Republicans and chapter of
College Democrats, however,
said they were not surprised
by the bipartisan support for
independent
investigations.
LSA
sophomore
Dylan
Berger, president of College
Republicans, said the study
reaffirmed what he already
knew.
“I
don’t
think
that
(the
finding) surprised me because in
this country, it’s very important
that we put conservative and
liberal aside and do what’s
right, and I think the majority
of people want to make sure that
we’re bridging those divides and
have good government,” Berger
said.
Public
Policy
junior
Katie
Kelly,
director
of
communications
for
College
Democrats, said she was also
unsurprised by the results.
“I
don’t
think
that
this
finding
is
that
surprising,”
Kelly said. “In a country where
bipartisanship has become more
difficult to achieve than ever
before, it is very important that
we focus on the issues that we
all agree on. This survey shows
that the majority of Americans
are united on this particular
issue,
not
just
Democrats,
Republicans, or independents.”
The study cautions readers
from interpreting the bipartisan
support
for
independent
investigations
in
an
overly
optimistic
way.
As
Nyhan
pointed
out,
even
though
Democrats
and
Republicans
may believe the same underlying
principle, they could potentially
interpret
the
meaning
of
an
“independent
and
fair”
investigation in different ways.
“As we describe, it is possible
for a consensus to exist on
various democratic principles
but for partisans to disagree
sharply on how to interpret
or apply those principles in
particular
cases,”
Nyhan
wrote. “Imagine two people
who say investigations should
be impartial but one opposes
political interference in the
Mueller investigation and the
other thinks the investigation
is a partisan ‘witch hunt’ that
should therefore be shut down.”
The study raises questions
about how the U.S. electorate will
react if Mueller’s investigation is
ended prematurely by Whitaker.
Both College Republicans and
College Democrats say they
have conversations within their
organizations about the Mueller
probe.
Berger said he is confident
President Donald Trump will
allow Mueller’s investigation
to
be
carried
through
to
completion, while Kelly saidshe
saw real concern among voters
when canvassing before the
midterm
elections
that
the
investigation would be cut short.
“Outside of our members, I
personally saw a good amount
of
discussion
on
the
issue
when knocking doors during
the election cycle,” Kelly said.
“Many people were concerned
about the investigation being
cut
short.
We
in
College
Democrats share that concern.
It is important that Robert
Mueller has the appropriate
time and resources to complete
a full investigation.”
Another major finding of the
study was that parties divide
sharply on the issue of voting
rights. Based on the survey, the
public ranked the importance
of equal voting rights very high,
with 89 percent of respondents
calling it important or essential,
but the two parties perceive
this
democratic
principle
differently.
Republicans
are
concerned with enforcing equal
voting
rights
by
combating
voter fraud, while Democrats
are focused on protecting voter
rights by ensuring equal access
to the ballot box.
Nyhan made the distinction
that widespread voter fraud
is not an issue the U.S. faces,
whereas voter suppression of
marginalized groups does exist.
“The problem is there’s a
factual misperception at the
heart of this dispute,” Nyhan
wrote. “Every serious inquiry
has shown that widespread voter
fraud is virtually nonexistent.
By contrast, the risk of voter ID
laws creating undue burdens
on voters from disadvantaged
groups is real.” He also pointed
out, though, that the literature
is mixed as to whether stricter
voter ID laws do reduce voter
turnout.
Berger said it is important
to
both
protect
Americans’
constitutional right to vote and
ensure that only those that are
supposed to vote actually go out
and vote. He said he believes
voter fraud is one of the most
important issues facing our
country.
“I would really like to see both
sides become more interested
in protecting from voter fraud
because if you have voter fraud
going on in this country, our
election system will not be able
to stand up, because in order to
retain legitimacy, you’ve got to
make sure that only those that
are supposed to vote actually
vote,” Berger said.
Kelly
affirmed
College
Democrats are concerned about
voter suppression across the
United States.
“Both as College Democrats
and as college students, we know
firsthand that voter suppression
is a problem in this country,”
Kelly said. “As stated in the
survey, research has shown that
voter fraud is not a problem
in this country. I think that
elections like those in Georgia
show that we have a long way to
go to ensure equal voting rights
for every American citizen.”
Kelly is referring to voter
suppression efforts in Georgia
during the midterm elections,
in which Brian Kemp, governor-
elect and former secretary of
state of Georgia, purged the
voter rolls prior to the election,
under
the
justification
of
removing people who haven’t
voted in recent elections, as
well as those who had died.
His office held 53,000 voter
registrations, nearly 70 percent
of which were Black voters,
because the name used on the
registration did not exactly
match
one
on
government
records. When ending her bid
for governor, Kemp’s opponent
Stacey
Abrams
lamented
an “erosion of democracy” that
she believed kept some of her
supporters from voting.
Looking
forward,
Nyhan
believes
the
study
has
implications
for
the
2020
presidential
election,
mainly
in
the
general
election
if
Trump’s
democratic
norm
violations
contribute
to
his
underperformance in the polls.
“His approval ratings are well
below what we’d expect given
the state of the economy,” Nyhan
said. “If Trump continues to
underperform because of factors
like democratic norm violations,
it could put him at greater risk of
defeat in 2020.”
Both Berger and Kelly said
they think the study indicates
the American electorate will
want a candidate who can put
the needs of the country over
party and respect American
democratic institutions.
“I think this survey shows
that
there
are
issues
that
Americans agree upon,” Kelly
said. “Future candidates must
focus on uniting our country
instead of dividing it.”
COURT
From Page 2A
ACADEMICS
From Page 1A
pockets and CSG has not
been
effective
enough
in
accessing those pockets and
making sure they are seen
by us and supported by us, so
we are going out to them, we
are asking them to come to us
and meet with us regularly
so we can serve with them
regularly.”
The proposed organization
of the program is to use
a cohort system in which
student organizations will
be separated into groups.
To determine the groups,
CSG offered organizations
several different categories,
such as “service,” “identity”
and
“professional,”
which
they could place themselves
into.
To
best
represent
their groups, organizations
had
the
option
to
place
themselves
group
into
multiple categories.
“In
the
conversations
to see how we can really
empower the students and
give them the platform, we
decided to compartmentalize
student orgs based on their
identities and based on their
missions,” LSA sophomore
Jacob Pollitt, CSG external
relations
officer,
said.
“Hopefully by bringing them
together, they’ll be able to
share
their
experiences,
share
their
information,
begin to understand sort of
how similar orgs face similar
issues and maybe how they’re
different and how through
the collaboration they can
sort of help each other with
the issues that they face.”
Every student organization
will appoint a liaison who
will work with Adjei and
Pollitt.
Each
liaison
will
funnel into a cohort, which
will interact directly with
CSG to create action plans,
facilitate
activities
and
provide necessary resources
through bi-weekly meetings.
As part of the program,
CSG would collaborate with
student
organizations
to
establish
workshops
and
seminars for the groups to
attend, potentially discussing
topics
such
as
money
management, technology and
social media.
“The seminars that we
are going to be hosting, they
optimize
the
benefits
of
organizations,” Adjei said.
“Workshops can focus on
ways
the
administration
as an entity can work with
organizations more directly
to
remove
barriers
that
they’re facing or to help their
agendas.”
According to Pollitt, the
liaison program will provide
multiple
short-term
and
long-term benefits for the
University.
Some
benefits
include
opportunities
to
build networks, being able
to use CSG as a platform
for advocacy and increased
accessibility
of
CSG
initiatives.
“Accessibility
to
other
CSG
projects,
current
and future, that’s a really
important thing to touch
on,” Pollitt said. “We do have
projects in the work and the
Liaison Program will sort
of smooth the way in terms
of implementation that not
only will benefit the student
orgs and their experience on
campus, but also will help
CSG achieve the visibility
that is necessary.”
During the presentation,
LSA
sophomore
Amanda
Kaplan, CSG vice chair of
the
finance
committee,
raised a concern about the
logistics behind integrating
student organizations with
a
pre-established
internal
governmental structure.
“What is your plan for
different types of student
groups that kind of already
have
an
established
government hierarchy like
sorority
and
fraternity
life, how are you going to
incorporate them into other
cohorts?” Kaplan asked.
In response, Adjei and
Pollitt said even if groups
such
as
sororities
and
fraternities
already
have
their
own
hierarchy,
by
coming to CSG, they can
receive additional help and
have an additional resource
to overcome any barriers.
Ultimately, they said, CSG
would just be an additional
platform to help make their
voices
and
perspectives
heard.
Toward the end of their
presentation,
Adjei
and
Pollitt proposed their goals
for the program in the next
five
years,
stating
they
hope for an annual summit,
guest presenters, consulting
sessions and more.
“Ideally we want the entire
campus to be in on this,”
Adjei said. “In five years we
want to be up and running
fully efficiently at maximum
velocity.
We
want
every
corner of campus to at least
know that we are there as a
resource and have a direct
line to us.”
CSG
From Page 1A
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com