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