Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, February 15, 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

T

he 
University 
of 

Michigan has a rich 
and 
storied 
history 

of 
student 
activism. 
One 

vivid 
example 
is 
student 

activism against the horrors 
of South African apartheid. 
But today, students have lost 
sight of that history, instead 
now organizing against the 
only stable democracy in the 
Middle East and resorting 
to anti-Semitism to do it. 
Going 
forward, 
we 
must 

organize against hate-filled 
movements, such as Boycott, 
Divestment, 
Sanctions, 
in 

order 
to 
honor 
our 
rich 

history of fighting for what’s 
right.

In 
his 
“Letter 
from 

Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin 
Luther 
King, 
Jr. 
wrote, 

“Injustice 
anywhere 
is 
a 

threat to justice everywhere.” 
King wrote this letter while 
detained in the Birmingham 
City 
Jail 
for 
organizing 

nonviolent 
resistance 

against racial segregation in 
Alabama. The letter served 
as a rebuke to critics who 
spoke out against King as an 
“outsider” and derided his 
popular 
campaign 
against 

segregation in the state.

King’s 
words 
remind 

us all that it is our duty 
to stand against injustice, 
wherever it may exist. King 
so 
profoundly 
articulated 

that none of us can sit idly by 
while our fellow members of 
humankind are denied their 
God-given rights. Despite his 
life being cut short by hate, 
his words live on. Inspired 
by King, countless Americans 
have picked up his mission to 
spread the light of freedom 
wherever darkness may exist. 
Students right here at the 
University of Michigan have 
an especially storied history 
of carrying on King’s eternal 
struggle against injustice.

When confronted with the 

menace of apartheid in South 
Africa, University students 
led the movement to tear 
down such an unjust system. 
In 1977, students launched a 
divestment campaign against 
apartheid South Africa with 
the formation of the South 
Africa Liberation Committee. 
Through these organizations, 
students pressed University 
leadership 
to 
divest 
all 

corporate 
investments 
in 

South Africa and cut ties with 
any 
segregated 
academic 

institutions in South Africa. 
At first, progress was slow. 
While opposed to apartheid, 
University 
leadership 
was 

reluctant 
to 
fully 
divest 

from South Africa. However, 
students were not deterred.

A 
new 
generation 
of 

student activists kept the 
movement 
humming 
on 

campus 
throughout 
the 

1980s as the rest of the 
world woke up to the horrors 
of 
apartheid. 
Thanks 
in 

large part to the work of 
students, 
the 
University 

Board of Regents voted in 
1983 to divest 90 percent 
of 
University 
holdings 
in 

companies with ties to South 
Africa. By 1985, the board 
voted to divest a further $4.5 
million of holdings connected 
to apartheid South Africa.

Students continued their 

quest for justice with an 
intense push to bestow an 
honorary degree on Nelson 
Mandela, 
the 
imprisoned 

leader of the South African 
anti-apartheid 
movement. 

After 
weeks 
of 
intense 

demonstrations, the board 
finally voted in favor of 
awarding 
Mandela 
with 

said honorary degree. After 
his 
release 
from 
prison, 

Mandela visited Michigan in 
1990, holding a rally at Tiger 
Stadium and receiving his 
honorary degree. With two 
decades of hard work and 
determination, 
University 

students 
honored 
King’s 

legacy by doing their part in 
bringing an evil system to an 
end.

Currently, 
however, 

similar forms of activism 
are employed by students on 
campus to smear a beacon 
of freedom and democracy 
while looking the other way 
on real evil. This is painfully 
apparent in the rise of the BDS 
movement on campus. In a sea 
of Middle Eastern illiberal 
theocracies and failed states, 
Israel has developed as a 
paragon of liberal democracy. 
The 
country’s 
diverse 

population of Jews, Muslims 
and Christians live in relative 
peace, 
with 
equal 
rights 

for all. In fact, next month 
marks the 20th anniversary 
of Abdel Rahman Zuabi, the 
first Arab-Israeli Supreme 
Court Justice, taking his seat 
on the court. Arab-Israelis 
also 
contribute 
to 
Israeli 

government, 
business 
and 

academia as equal citizens.

In opposition to the facts, 

BDS supporters on campus 
have forged ahead with their 
crusade against Israel. Since 
2002, student activists tried 
and failed 10 times to pass a 
resolution in support of the 
BDS movement against Israel. 
Exemplifying the frightening 
rise 
of 
anti-Semitism 

worldwide 
as 
of 
late, 

Central Student Government 
ultimately passed a motion 
in support of BDS in 2017. 
Thankfully, the University 
Board of Regents have stood 
against this unjust effort to 

wage economic war against 
the world’s only Jewish state.

While 
speaking 
out 

against Israel, a beacon of 
freedom and a key pillar 
of 
American 
security 
in 

the 
Middle 
East, 
student 

activists 
have 
been 
mum 

on the rising tide of anti-
Semitism 
associated 
with 

their movement. Just this 
month, 
newly-elected 
U.S. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., 
accused supporters of Israel 
in Congress of being bought 
off with Jewish (specifically 
from AIPAC) money. While 
some came to her defense, 
her 
comments 
provoked 

significant backlash on both 
sides of the aisle. In a rare 
show of bipartisanship, both 
President Donald Trump and 
Speaker of the House Nancy 
Pelosi, D-Calif., condemned 
Omar’s 
comment. 
While 

Omar 
represents 
a 
fresh 

face for liberal Democrats, 
her ideas are anything but. 
Instead, Omar has reverted to 
age-old anti-Semitic tropes 
to make her case against 
Israel.

As a Jewish-American, 

those comments hit close to 
home for me. My loyalties 
are with one country and 
one 
country 
alone: 
the 

United States of America. 
That 
being 
said, 
I’m 
a 

strong believer in Israeli 
sovereignty 
and 
security. 

My opposition to the BDS 
movement should in no way 
be construed as opposition 
to Palestinian sovereignty 
or the Palestinian people. 
Quite 
the 
contrary. 
I 

believe 
wholeheartedly 

in 
the 
Palestinian 
right 

to 
self-determination 
and 

am a strong supporter of a 
two-state solution. Having 
said that, I oppose BDS’s 
antagonization of a liberal 
democracy that is key to 
advancing 
U.S. 
security 

interests in the region. With 
public figures such as Omar 
increasingly 
comfortable 

with calling the loyalties 
of patriotic Americans into 
question because of their 
religion, now is the time for 
action on campus.

As 
Dr. 
Martin 
Luther 

King, 
Jr. 
said, 
“Injustice 

anywhere is a threat to justice 
everywhere.” In the past, 
students at the University 
of Michigan have stood on 
the side of justice, tirelessly 
working to extend the flame 
of freedom into the next 
generation. Now, however, 
a movement built on anti-
Semitic hate has taken root 
on campus and in our country 
as a whole. University of 
Michigan 
students 
must 

again honor our legacy of 
leading 
the 
fight 
against 

hatred, no matter how long it 
takes.

Dylan Berger can be reached at 

dylberge@umich.edu

JONATHAN R. MORRIS | OP-ED

Fossil fuel is not the path to carbon neutrality

T

he scientific consensus 

is 
unequivocal: 
To 

curb 
climate 
change, 

humanity 
must 
act 
with 

existential 
urgency 
or 
face 

devastating impacts. The recent 

2018 Intergovernmental Panel 

on 
Climate 
Change 
report 

recommends 
cutting 
global 

greenhouse gas emissions in half 

by 2030. Other research, like 

the alarming recent findings on 

sea level rise and Greenland’s 

rapidly 
melting 
ice 
sheet, 

implies that we need to act even 

more swiftly to avoid potentially 

catastrophic tipping points.

Fortunately, 
University 

of 
Michigan 
President 
Mark 

Schlissel has pledged to make the 

University of Michigan carbon 

neutral. 
His 
administration 

just announced the formation 

of 
a 
committee 
to 
make 

recommendations towards this 

goal. 
Unfortunately, 
we 
are 

way behind the curve. Other 

universities 
are 
taking 
the 

challenge seriously, like Stanford 

University, which is switching to 

100 percent solar energy by 2021. 

Closer to home, our Big Ten rival 

Michigan State University has 

installed a system of solar carports 

that produce 15,000 megawatts 

of power annually, while Ohio 

State University now generates 

26 percent of campus electricity 

with wind power. Others are 

already implementing aggressive 

carbon neutrality plans, like the 

University of California system, 

which set an ambitious target of 

cutting emissions by 2025.

Disappointingly, our primary 

strategy at the University for 

confronting the climate crisis 

has been to double down on 

fossil fuel infrastructure. This 

past 
summer, 
the 
University 

finalized an $80 million plan to 

upgrade the U-M Central Power 

Plant and to expand our capacity 

to burn natural gas. According 

to 
University 
estimates, 
the 

project will improve efficiency 

and partially help us to meet our 

previous GHG reduction goals.

But 
from 
a 
climate 

standpoint, this move is deeply 

troubling. First, this decision 

ignores the emerging science that 

demonstrates that methane leaks 

from natural gas infrastructure 

are much worse than previous 

estimates and may erode the 

potential 
transitional 
benefits 

of this fuel source. Second, and 

most importantly, investing in 

yesterday’s infrastructure locks 

our university into continued 

fossil fuel reliance for decades 

to come — a move that is 

diametrically opposed to the 

rapid decarbonization timeframe 

established by the IPCC.

We can learn from others 

who have already made this 

same mistake, such as the UC 

system, which is struggling to 

meet their carbon neutrality 

goals 
because 
of 
the 
dead 

weight 
of 
their 
extensive 

natural 
gas 
infrastructure 

that 
was 
expanded 
decades 

ago. 
Fortunately, 
they 
have 

already 
done 
most 
of 
the 

research necessary to guide 

us 
away 
from 
this 
same 

quagmire, while still meeting 

campus heat and electricity 

needs. Not surprisingly, the 

first 
recommendation 
is 
to 

stop 
expanding 
natural 
gas 

infrastructure.

This is, in fact, doable at the 

University and there are many 

innovative 
examples 
around 

the world, starting in our own 

backyard with MSU and OSU — 

both of which are saving money 

to keep tuition costs down by 

switching to renewable energy. 

At the University, the experts 

that actually run our central 

power plant say that we can 

make the transition, but what 

they need are the directive 

and the resources. That means 

leadership 
from 
University 

administration, not just the 

formation of another committee.

In fact, in 2015, Schlissel’s 

previous 
Greenhouse 
Gas 

Reduction 
Committee 
made 

the recommendation that any 

upgrades to our central power 

plant should come in tandem with 

an aggressive plan to transition 

our infrastructure away from 

fossil fuels. This was four years 

ago and yet there is still no plan 

in place. Their report even admits 

that the central power plant plans 

are “... unlikely to be viewed as 

the action of a climate leader or 

to engage the campus community 

in the vision and implementation 

of GHG reduction.” And yet, 

embarrassingly, the University 

Office of Campus Sustainability 

continues to brag about this 

misguided plan, seemingly taking 

pride in our increased reliance on 

natural gas.

While we must give Schlissel 

credit for aspiring towards the 

right goal, it is crucial that we 

press the University to do it the 

right way. On that, there are two 

important perspectives. First, if 

we aspire to actually reduce the 

climate impact of our campus, we 

must have scientifically sound 

and 
transparent 
accounting. 

The only emissions metric that 

matters is the total impact of our 

actions on the atmosphere, which 

requires a holistic approach — 

incorporating methane leaks and 

all.

Second, echoing Schlissel’s 

own vision, our impact must 

be 
much 
broader 
than 
the 

individual 
footprint 
of 
our 

campus. As one of the world’s 

largest and most prestigious 

public universities, we are in a 

unique position to lead on this 

issue and to set an example to 

inspire other institutions to also 

take this challenge seriously. Our 

tremendous capacity for research 

and 
our 
ample 
resources, 

including 
the 
impressive 
$5 

billion we recently raised, can 

be mobilized to partner with 

communities and inspire climate 

solutions around the world.

In fact, other universities 

— like, you guessed it, OSU — 

have already been doing this 

by 
collaborating 
with 
local 

governments and municipalities 

to develop extensive plans for 

decarbonization, in turn making 

their efforts replicable on a 

broader scale. To do the same 

here in Michigan, we must be 

a 
good 
community 
partner 

and set an example by actually 

committing to ambitious climate 

action, not just questionable baby 

steps.

DYLAN BERGER | COLUMN

We must come back to our roots on activism

P

olitical 
commentator 

Ben Shapiro is coming 
to campus. He has been 

invited to come down to the 
University of Michigan at the 
behest 
of 
Young 
America’s 

Foundation 
and 
there 
will 

surely be fireworks at his event 
(as there tend to be at all of 
them).

I’m not going to say he should 

be disinvited, because I do not 
believe in deplatforming, but I 
will ask, what does his rhetoric 
do? Is there an expectation 
that 
the 
incoming 
circus 

will actually make anything 
better? Or is he being invited 
solely to — if you’ll pardon 
the phrase — own the libs? A 
quick look at YouTube videos 
of 
his 
previous on-campus 

experiences typically features 
the same thing — a clueless 
student who makes the mistake 
of asking a question only to get 
shot down by Shapiro talking 
faster than the speed of light. 
The videos all tend to be titled 
something to the effect of, “Ben 
Shapiro 
OWNS/DESTROYS/

OBLITERATES/etc.”

This 
certainly 
helps 

fundraising and it no doubt 
raises 
Shapiro’s 
name 

recognition, 
but 
does 
this 

convert students to a belief 
in freer markets and freer 
people? I would argue that it 
doesn’t and, if it does anything, 
it 
pushes 
students 
away 

from 
anything 
resembling 

conservatism.

There are those who say 

that the young lean left and, 
as they grow, they’ll grow into 
conservatives — but this might 
not happen.

The young people who put 

President Obama in office in 
2008 and 2012 are settling 
down and having kids — they’re 
not 
college 
students 
any 

longer. However, their liberal 
politics have stayed with them 
along with their resistance to 
voting Republican. This isn’t a 
problem solely with millennials 
— Gen Z is just as, if not more 
liberal than millennials, and I 

fail to see how large numbers 
of either of these groups will 
vote for people who have 
made militant resistance to 
gay marriage and transgender 
rights 
a 
prerequisite 
for 

involvement (one need only 
look to the 2016 Republican 
platform to see things to this 
effect and beyond).

Not all hope is lost, but much 

work must be done to regain 
the trust — and, eventually, 
the votes — of younger people, 
and 
there 
are 
promising 

starts. Shoshana Weissmann, 
digital media manager of the 
right-leaning 
think 
tank 
R 

Street Institute, has become 
a 
passionate 
advocate 
for 

occupational licensing reform 
and groups like the Association 
of Corporate Counsel have 
popped 
up 
to 
give 
the 

environmentalist capitalists a 
place to call home. If people like 
this were the face of the young 
right, it would demonstrate 
that not only are there serious 
solutions on the right but that 
they are being pursued by 
serious people as opposed to 
what there is today.

The main issue with this 

important work is that it tends 
to be outshone by charlatans 
like Charlie Kirk who came 
to campus to screech about 
capitalism in 2018. They’re 
the visible ones and the ones 
who will end up forming the 
backbone of the future of 
activist conservatism. To be 
clear, Ben Shapiro is leaps and 
bounds ahead of Charlie Kirk, 
but that would, ideally, not be 
the baseline. This is because 
when one consciously chooses 
to make Charlie Kirk the 
baseline, this lowers the bar for 
everyone else to the point that 
an infant could crawl over it. 

Conservatism can offer a 

compelling vision to young 
people — lower taxes on the 
businesses they start, a strong 
national defense to keep them 
safe and fewer regulations 
to make day-to-day life less 
onerous. 
However, 
as 
long 

as it comes with the anti-
immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and 
anti-Muslim rhetoric of U.S. 
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, the 
anti-intellectualism of Charlie 
Kirk and the hostility to basic 
governance 
embodied 
by 

President Donald Trump, none 
of them will sign up — and you 
can’t blame them.

These problems have been 

written about before and will 
be written about again. But 
until the right decides that 
they’re done vying for the 
youth vote, nothing is going to 
change and that is a tragedy. 
Younger voters could help 
make the Republican Party 
more appealing to broader 
swathes of the electorate and 
could help divorce the GOP 
from its current dalliance 
with bigotry. It’s a bit of a 
chicken 
and 
egg 
problem, 

because 
the 
party 
won’t 

change without young voters 
— but young voters aren’t 
getting 
involved 
with 
the 

party without changes. This is 
especially evident given that 
under one-third of millennials 
and under one-third of Gen Z 
approve of President Trump. 
The more the institutional 
right ties itself to Trump, the 
less young voters will approve 
of the institutional right. This 
problem has bled down to the 
campus level and as a result, 
the on-campus iteration of 
the institutional right seems 
to have decided that given 
the choice between “owning 
the 
libs” 
and 
achieving 

meaningful policy victories, 
they would go with the former.

Those 
who 
involve 

themselves 
in 
groups 
like 

Turning Point USA and put on 
these kinds of circuses might 
do well to remember that if 
they want to see any public 
policy that they agree with 
later in their lifetimes, they’ll 
need the votes of their peers.

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

The sorry state of conservatism on campus

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.

Going forward, 

we must organize 
against hate-filled 

movements

 Anik Joshi can be reached at 

anikj@umich.edu

Jonathan R. Morris is a doctoral 

student at the School for Enviroment and 

Sustainability 

