Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

Erin White

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

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

“

Brokeback 
Mountain” 

is probably my favorite 
movie. Not only are Heath 

Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal 
phenomenal actors, but the film 
is also moving in a way that 
isn’t overly theatrical. The plot 
itself is quite simple, and there 
are no cliché scenes dramatized 
by overpowering music and 
overdone camerawork that are 
present in so many other films 
today.

Ledger 
and 
Gyllenhaal 

received accolades for their roles 
at the time of the film’s release, 
including Gyllenhaal’s British 
Academy Film and Television 
Arts award for Best Actor in a 
Supporting Role and Ledger’s 
New York Film Critics Circle 
award for Best Actor. Both 
actors also received praise for 
their willingness to be a part of a 
movie that was controversial for 
depicting a love story between 
two men at a time when movies 
featuring 
heterosexual 
love 

stories such as “Mr. and Mrs. 
Smith,” “A Cinderella Story” and 
“The Notebook” were popular.

At the time of the film’s 

release, 
no 
one 
seemed 
to 

question why two straight men 
were chosen to play the roles of 
two decidedly not straight men. 
This was most likely because 
there were few movies being 
produced at the time that did 
feature gay characters or love 
stories. Either no one thought 
to say anything — or they chose 
not to.

However, in 2019, celebrities 

are 
being 
held 
accountable 

for 
their 
past 
problematic 

productions 
and 
roles. 
In 

particular, white actors who 
played non-white roles and non-
queer actors who played gender 
queer 
characters 
are 
being 

heavily criticized for choosing to 
play a role that was never theirs 
to take. Yet no straight actor 
who chose to play, or is currently 
playing, a non-straight character 
receives public backlash. In fact, 
many of these actors are loved 
by the LGBTQ+ community for 
their roles: Darren Criss’ Blaine 
in “Glee” and Shay Mitchell’s 
Emily in “Pretty Little Liars” 
are both well loved. Neither 
actor has received backlash 
for portraying gay characters. 
Neither 
have 
Ledger 
and 

Gyllenhaal for their portrayals 
of Ennis Del Mar and Jack 
Twist, 
respectively, 
in 

“Brokeback Mountain.” Why 
is that?

Perhaps people have chosen 

to 
refrain 
from 
attacking 

Ledger’s portrayal of Del Mar 
out of respect for his death. Yet 
Gyllenhaal, Criss and Mitchell 
have 
all 
escaped 
criticism 

for 
their 
characters 
and 

performances while other actors 
who have played roles that don’t 
align with their identity, such 
as Emma Stone, who played an 
Asian-American character in 
“Aloha,” and Scarlett Johansson, 
who also played a traditionally 
Asian character in “Ghost in 

the Shell” – both who have 
been heavily rebuked for their 
roles. Eddie Redmayne has 
also been criticized by the 
transgender 
community 
for 

playing 
transgender 
woman 

Lili 
Elbe 
in 
“The 
Danish 

Girl” and Johansson recently 
dropped her role in the movie 
“Rub & Tug,” where she would 
have played a transgender man, 
after heavy backlash from the 
transgender community.

These actors have also been 

the butt of some jokes: Sandra 
Oh made a joke about Johansson 
and Stone’s roles as characters of 
Asian descent during her Emmys 
monologue, quipping, “(Crazy 
Rich Asians) is the first studio 
film with an Asian-American 
lead since ‘Ghost in the Shell’ 
and 
‘Aloha.’” 
Stone 
could 

then be heard yelling, “I’m 
sorry!” over the sounds of the 
audience laughing.

While Redmayne has been 

mostly lauded by cis people for 
his role in “The Danish Girl,” 
even 
snagging 
an 
Academy 

Award 
nomination 
for 
his 

work, he has been put under 
scrutiny by members of the trans 
community. Carol Grant, a trans 
female writer, explained her 
ire with Redmayne’s role in the 
movie in an IndieWire article, 
commenting, “For a film that’s 
being touted as a progressive 
step 
up 
for 
‘transgender 

visibility’, 
everything 
about 

its view of trans women and 
women in general is regressive, 
reductive, 
and 
contributes 

to harmful stereotypes: the 
cisnormative 
idea 
that 
a 

trans woman is simply a man 
performing faux-femininity, as 
Redmayne twirls and vogues 
his way into womanhood.” She 
also criticizes the way in which 
the movie portrays Elbe as 
being weak, condemning “the 
reductive portrait of a trans 
woman as a figure of pity whose 
tragedy stems from being a man 
unable to ‘practice womanhood’, 
rather 
than 
accepting 
her 

womanhood as natural fact; 
the 
arguments 
that 
TERFs 

(trans-exclusionary 
radical 

feminists) love to perpetuate 
that trans women only reinforce 
outdated gender stereotypes; 
the leering at a trans woman’s 
body as something unnatural 
and abnormal instead of inviting 
the audience to understand our 
dysphoria.”

Grant’s 
argument 
about 

the problematic nature of “The 
Danish Girl” suggests the reason 

that so many people have a 
problem 
with 
whitewashing 

and cisgender actors playing 
trans characters, while they 
don’t often have a problem with 
straight characters playing gay 
characters, is because of the 
stark difference between the 
accuracy in which the characters 
are portrayed. Grant does not 
approve of Redmayne’s casting 
and performance because he, 
as a cisgender man, cannot 
accurately portray a transgender 
woman. This is true not only 
because he is a man playing 
a woman but also because he 
perpetuates false cisnormative 
beliefs about trans-ness. People 
take umbrage with Johansson 
and Stone’s portrayals of Asian-
American characters because 
white people cannot accurately 
portray characters of Asian 
descent. This is a visibility 
issue: Being white automatically 
disqualifies an actor for playing 
a character of Asian descent, 
since they don’t look Asian.

With gay characters, most 

performances have not been 
marred by stereotypes and 
instead have allowed members 
of the LGBTQ+ community 
to 
feel 
authentically 

represented in popular culture. 
Furthermore, 
there 
is 
no 

visibility issue. “Pretty Little 
Liars” Emily isn’t portrayed 
as a masculine character who 
chops her hair and makes 
unwanted passes on straight 
girls; 
Glee’s 
Blaine 
isn’t 

portrayed 
as 
an 
extremely 

effeminate 
character 
who 

loves shopping or tokenized 
as the “gay best friend.” Del 
Mar and Twist of “Brokeback 
Mountain,” 
similarly, 
aren’t 

portrayed as feminine, and 
are 
actually 
portrayed 
as 

being quite masculine, which 
combats 
stereotypes 
about 

gay men. Furthermore, people 
who are not straight don’t have 
an obvious “look” to them, as 
people of different races do.

I wonder, then, if this 

permission from the LGBTQ+ 
community for straight actors 
to play queer characters is 
at all contextual: If a movie 
centered around the life of 
a 
gay 
activist 
is 
released 

and the activist is played 
by a straight actor, is that 
still acceptable? Regardless, 
representation 
in 
media 

continues to be a multifaceted 
topic 
and 
the 
LGBTQ+ 

community’s willingness to 
allow 
non-straight 
actors 

to 
play 
gay 
characters 

shouldn’t 
be 
exploited 
to 

argue 
against 
problematic 

aspects of Hollywood, such as 
whitewashing. This selective 
outrage is not reflective of 
irrational anger or pettiness. 
Rather, it is because in an 
industry where representation 
is iffy at best, Hollywood may 
have gotten it right.

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN

What of a woman’s strength?

W

atching Justice Ruth 

Bader 
Ginsburg, 

played by Felicity 

Jones, climb the steps 

of the Supreme Court 

moments 
before 

the 
credits 
rolled 

elicited not only an 

emotional 
reaction 

from 
the 
theater’s 

crowd, 
but 
also 

spurred my thinking 

on the emphasis on 

the recent portrayals 

of strong women in 

the media.

Looking 
back, 
the 
2016 

presidential 
election 
cycle 

brought this conversation to 

the forefront in a re-energized 

way. With a female candidate 

as the presidential nominee on 

a major party ticket for the first 

time, the conversation in the 

unending news cycle created 

a constant critique of what it 

meant to be a female leader. 

Hillary Clinton was under the 

media 
microscope 
— 
facing 

gender-related commentary on 

her political approaches and 

decisions. After the elections 

came to a close, there was a 

tangible 
energy 
increase 
in 

American women and, since 

then, our media have sought to 

capture it.

Strong women have come to 

the forefront of television news, 

shows and movies. From two 

films coming out within the year 

about a Supreme Court justice 

who has championed gender 

equality on the legal front, to 

numerous 
female 
politicians 

announcing 
their 
candidacy 

for 2020, to actor Regina King 

vowing 
that 
everything 
she 

produces moving forward will 

be at least 50 percent female, 

being powerful and female is 

now, more than ever, a hot topic. 

This leads me to wonder: How 

can I be strong in my own 

right 
and 
what 
constitutes 

being strong according to this 

popular narrative?

According 
to 
Comedy 

Central’s satirical cartoon South 

Park, in which they have a 

character duly named 

the 
Vice 
Principal 

Strong 
Woman, 

this 
feminine 

persona is rooted in 

stubbornness 
and 

having 
qualities 

equal 
to 
that 

of 
a 
man. 
This 

interpretation, albeit 

very hyperbolic, of 

powerful 
women 

in 
society 
does 

hold a grain of truth. Women 

in 
positions 
of 
power 
are 

portrayed and evaluated on 

these characteristics and are 

generally, though not always, 

expected to comport in this 

limiting way.

So how do I as a college 

student fit into this narrative? 

What do strong women look like 

as young adults, still searching 

for their passions and places, 

instead 
of 
as 
professionals? 

Can we dare to break free from 

this mold, or has society in its 

championing of women already 

tried to do this?

I believe the idea of strength 

is entirely subjective and to be 

powerful can mean so many 

different things to people. The 

ability to perform equally to 

male peers can be approached 

in numerous ways, instead of 

the stereotypical way media 

presents it to us. Being strong 

can take form in silence, in 

being outgoing, in spearheading 

initiatives or in being a good 

team member. One does not have 

to embody the “Vice Principal 

Strong Woman” aura to be taken 

seriously.

So, as we move forward 

into 2019, I intend to answer 

Regina King’s call to lift up 

other women. Let’s encourage 

others to be comfortable in 

their own definitions of what 

strong is, instead of trying 

to emulate a societal meta-

narrative. Let us rally behind 

female politicians as we move 

into 
the 
upcoming 
election 

cycle, not solely because they 

are women, but because they 

are individuals who deserve a 

candidacy without the white 

noise of subtle gender-based 

remarks and outfit critiques. 

Let 
us 
stand 
together 
and 

continue to contribute to the 

energizing wave of championing 

each other, instead of turning 

our backs.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

established 
herself 
as 
an 

independent, 
strong-willed 

woman in the 1950s. Today, she 

sits on the bench of the highest 

court in the land. The fight 

that she represents is not over, 

but rather renewed. We find 

ourselves riding on this new 

momentum of outspokenness for 

women’s rights and recognition, 

but must take note as to how to 

best contribute to this. Let us 

be aware of this expected mold 

that media urges female leaders 

and personalities to be and 

implore others to break free of 

these restraints. I am strong in 

my own right, and it may not be 

because I am stubborn or need 

to prove my capabilities. And 

all of those around me equally 

share this strength, regardless 

of their qualities — we just need 

to get rid of the narrative trying 

to tell us otherwise.

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 

7:00-8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard 

St. All are welcome to come discuss national, 

state and campus affairs.

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

On selective outrage

L

ast semester, I had to take 
Space 101: Rocket Science 
as a requirement for my 

minor in space engineering. I am 
majoring in engineering physics 
and computer science, so I went 
into the class with a relatively 
high level of comfort with the 
topics that would be discussed. 
On the first day of class, I quickly 
realized 
the 
course 
would 

satisfy the LSA natural science 
requirement and only required 
a working knowledge of algebra. 
Given the average historical 
grade was an A-, the lecture hall 
was packed with humanities and 
social science majors looking 
for a class that would satisfy the 
requirement and involve as little 
math as possible.

Was I a little frustrated most 

students had no interest in a 
subject near and dear to my 
heart? Yes. Do I think courses 
like Space 101 should be limited 
to engineering students? Of 
course not.

Intellectual 
breadth 

requirements 
vary 
for 
each 

major, but their purpose remains 
the same: to expose students to 
subjects and skills not taught in 
their major’s core curriculum. 
Those 
classes 
help 
make 

students 
more 
well-rounded 

and allow them to interact with 
students from whom they may 
not normally get to learn. For 
engineers, they can also serve a 
different purpose and teach us 
skills we may not learn in our 
structured, 
problem-solving 

based curriculum.

Engineers 
taking 
upper-

level humanities classes have 
frustrated 
engineers 
and 

LSA students alike, but the 
importance of this requirement 
can’t be overlooked. Generalizing 
the average engineering student 
as someone who only watches 
lecture recordings or has to 
submit all assignments to a harsh 
autograder (something only the 
Program in Computer Science 
employs, as far as I know) is 
stereotypical 
and 
somewhat 

demeaning to the entire college. 
Engineering students frequently 
are required to work in groups 
on projects, discuss the merits 
of 
various 
problem-solving 

techniques and teach each other 
material when office hours are 
busy. We aren’t all introverts 

who can’t communicate well 
enough to take a discussion-
based course. In fact, many 
required engineering courses 
also have required discussion 
sections, not to mention the 
other 13 liberal arts credits we 
have to take.

Engineering 
students 
are 

required to take a minimum of 
16 credits of liberal arts courses, 
which 
include 
humanities, 

professional development and 
intellectual breadth courses from 
a wide range of departments. 
Only three credits must be 
300-level or higher. Implying 
that engineering students are 
only required to take one non-
engineering course in the entire 
four years they spend at the 
University is flat-out wrong.

Admittedly, 
engineering 

degrees are often structured 
differently than social science 
or 
humanities 
degrees. 
To 

reach upper-level core classes 
in a subject, students must take 
several enforced prerequisites 
in a sequence to even be able to 
register. When looking at upper-
level humanities courses, almost 
none of the classes (taught in 
English) even have advisory 
prerequisites. This implies that 
these courses can be taken by 
any student, regardless of major 
or academic background. The 
difference between upper-level 
and introductory classes in the 
humanities is that the classes 
become 
more 
specialized. 

The classes still have the same 
structure of learning material 
during lectures and analyzing the 
content in discussion sections.

These 
discussion-based 

courses allow everyone to be on 
the same playing field. As there 
are no prerequisites, students 
who pay attention in class and 
learn the material should all be 
able to contribute. Engineers 
may 
have 
a 
disadvantage 

of 
being 
used 
to 
learning 

environments where there is 
only one correct answer, but 
there can be hundreds of ways 
to reach that answer and find a 
working solution. We do often 
have a different perspective 
from our LSA peers, with a 
relatively weaker background 
in humanities, but that doesn’t 
mean 
valuable 
contributions 

from engineering students “tend 

to be the exception, not the 
rule.” In fact, that statement is 
somewhat insulting.

To be fair, there are many 

engineering students who don’t 
have the same enthusiasm for 
humanities as they do for their 
major core classes. However, there 
are always going to be students 
who have no interest in the subject 
being taught. That subject just 
varies from person to person, 
major to major. I am sure many 
LSA students majoring in math or 
a science feel the same way about 
humanities. Should there be a 
limit on how many non-majors are 
allowed in a class? What about a 
limit on how many underclassmen 
take 
upper-level 
humanities? 

Both of those options would let 
upper-level humanities students 
enjoy their classes more, but I 
think that would end up hurting 
everyone. The whole purpose of 
a discussion is to have students 
analyze material and compare 
their insights with their peers. 
Nowhere does it say that every 
student in a 300-level philosophy 
class should have already read all 
of Kant and Nietzsche’s works in 
order to be able to “elevate” the 
class discussion.

So the main question here 

is this: Who gets to determine 
what contributions to a class-
wide discussion are valuable? 
Assuming 
the 
only 
valid 

contribution is something we 
would’ve thought of ourselves 
seems 
somewhat 
narrow 

minded. Some of the most 
interesting 
perspectives 
I’ve 

heard have come from people 
in other majors and other 
colleges. Isolating each major 
in their own echo chamber 
of 
students 
who 
take 
the 

same classes, learn the same 
information and are interested 
in the same things is not how 
college should work. We pursue 
higher education to learn about 
different things, to meet people 
from a variety of backgrounds 
and to discover new interests 
we may have never considered. 
Those are the things that create 
a positive, supportive learning 
environment.

ROSIE VAN ALSBURG | OP-ED

Who decides what contributions are valuable?

Rosie Van Alsburg is a junior 

majoring in Engineering Physics with a 

concentration in Computer Science and 

can be reached at roseva@umich.edu.

Samantha Szuhaj can be reached at 

szuhajs@umich.edu.

How can I be 

strong in my own 

right?

In 2019, celebrities 

are being held 
accountable 
for their past 
problematic 

productions and 

roles

SAMANTHA 

SZUHAJ

