Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 21, 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
As a movement, March
For Our Lives was truly the
first of its kind. Children
from middle school and up
across the nation confronted
lawmakers for their inaction
and
demanded
common-
sense
gun
control.
We
commend these students and
their efforts to call attention
to the crisis of gun violence
in America.
As
student
journalists,
we at The Michigan Daily
feel a special connection
to the young people who
have continuously updated
SinceParkland.org
—
a
website run by teens that
documents the horrible and
far too common incidence of
young lives taken too soon
by firearms. In an exemplary
display of journalism done
right, these young reporters
seek to humanize — rather
than simply empiricize — the
deaths of those their age.
These activists are deserving
of our utmost respect and
gratitude as their impact
on the national discourse
regarding this contentious
“wedge”
issue
has
been
immeasurable.
As a unit, these youth
activists have seen gains
made in the wake of their
tireless work. For example,
a majority of Republicans —
whose policies lean favorably
toward the gun lobby — now
support raising the legal
gun-buying age to 21 from
18. On the legislative side,
we saw an NRA-endorsed
Republican
administration
ban “bumpstocks,” a move
that coincides with point
number five on the March
For Our Lives policy agenda:
“Limit firing power on the
streets.”
Furthermore,
a
day
before
the
one-year
anniversary of the Parkland
shooting, House Democrats
backed a bill that would
require background checks
for all sales and transfers
of guns — a policy that
92
percent
of
Americans
support.
The
significance
of these gains should not be
understated and they are far
from the only ones.
At
the
same
time,
however,
we
still
have
great strides to make. Since
Parkland, more than 1,200
children have been killed
in
acts
of
gun
violence
throughout
the
country.
This should galvanize the
nation
to
advocate
even
more fiercely for legislative
change.
While
the
proverbial
gears have been turning and
things seem to be trending
in
the
right
direction,
most
of
the
legislation
that
has
actually
been
passed
and
implemented
since the tragedy has been
fairly cosmetic and fails to
bring about the sweeping
fundamental changes needed
to beat back the rising tide
of gun violence. We urge
legislators
to
properly
uphold their duty to serve
their constituents. Part of
doing so requires that they
take substantive action on
the issue of gun control in
order to ensure safety for all,
so that no child has to feel
scared while pursuing an
education.
Regrettably,
the
movement for increased gun
control
has,
historically,
been
far
more
reactive
than proactive. We see a
groundswell
of
support
for these measures in the
immediate
aftermath
of
these
mass
shootings,
only to see said support
subsequently begin to wane
until it eventually returns
to its baseline. This is in
spite of the fact that mass
shootings in this country
occur on a daily basis. We
simply
cannot
afford
to
succumb
to
complacency.
Sustained collective action
is what is needed to inspire
change.
We also would like to
take this time to condemn
those insidious voices on
the far-right who attacked
the heroism of the March
For
Our
Lives
activists.
Disinformation
agents,
such as radio host Alex
Jones,
spread
malicious
conspiracy theories meant
to turn the public against
the movement. Jones even
went so far as to claim that
the Parkland students who
spoke up about the trauma
of being forced to endure
the sudden loss of 17 of their
fellow
schoolmates
were
crisis actors and that the
shooting itself was just one
big “deep state false flag
operation.” Fox News host
Laura Ingraham and former
Milwaukee
Sheriff
David
Clark also chimed in with
their
regularly
scheduled
programming of hate and
vitriol,
going
on-air
to
target
survivors
such
as
student David Hogg.
These
public
figures
consciously
attempted
to
manipulate
the
narrative
to
paint
honest,
well-
intentioned student activists
as
the
bad
actors.
Such
malevolence not only poisons
our media ecosystem, but
it also discourages future
student activism of all kinds
as people fear becoming the
victims of targeted attacks.
We remember the lives
of the students killed at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School as well as every
victim of all mass shootings
before and since. We will
continue
forward
with
optimism in this battle, as we
look to activists, journalists
and everyday citizens alike
to continue calling attention
to gun violence. We also
hope that those in political
office will be receptive to
the demands of such broad
swaths of the population,
and enact the policies that
will facilitate the positive
changes we wish to see.
SAM SUGERMAN | COLUMN
Environmental racism in America
A
ll stories are composed
of five basic parts: an
exposition,
an
inciting
event, a climax, a resolution and a
conclusion. In the United States,
there are many ongoing stories
related to the injustices faced by
minority groups. These forms of
injustice range from the rise and
fall of the Jim Crow laws, Japanese
internment camps and President
Donald Trump’s Muslim ban —
just to name a few.
Each form of injustice was
(and is) rooted in racism, bigotry
and xenophobia. Each form of
injustice has its own story, and
each story is full of characters
— protagonists and antagonists
alike. These unfolding stories have
shaped the history of our country
and continue to write our future,
as myriad forms of injustice are
still prevalent in the very fabric of
our society. Many of these issues
continue to tear apart our already
divided society and any resolution
to mitigate these injustices.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
once said, “We have flown the air
like birds and swum the sea like
fishes, but have yet to learn the
simple act of walking the earth like
brothers.” Humans have put a man
on the moon, but cannot figure out
how to live together in harmony.
Is this due to our inherent self-
interest and neglect of altruistic
principles? Environmental racism
and the disproportionate impact
of environmental hazards on low
socioeconomic minority groups
exhibits our apparent inability to
reconcile these ideals.
The exposition is multifaceted.
Environmental racism is rooted in
the continued racial discrimination
towards Black people since the end
of slavery. Throughout history,
people of color have been subject
to unfair housing, inequitable
zoning
policies
and
limited
say in land allocation and use.
These factors have cumulatively
produced environmental racism
that has lead to a myriad of health
risks associated with air and water
quality.
However,
the
magnitude
of the injustice would not have
been understood if not for the
exploratory
work
published
in
Rachel
Carson’s
“Silent
Spring.” The book sparked the
environmental movement, lead to
the ban of DDT, the amendment
and creation of laws concerned
with our environment and most
importantly the institution of the
Environmental Protection Agency,
or the EPA — the preeminent
regulatory
agency
dedicated
towards environmental policy.
This inciting event involves the
most influential protagonist in the
fight for racial equality, Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. In 1968, Martin
Luther King, Jr went to Memphis,
Tenn. to support the strike of
sanitation workers who were not
being properly compensated for
their dangerous and dirty work.
The workers were subject to health
concerns from the chemicals in
the sewage to the contaminants
from the waste. In pursuit of
equality, King’s actions lead to the
establishment of the Clean Water
Act and Fair Housing Act, two
influential pieces of legislation
in
curtailing
the
impact
of
environmental racism. Memphis
was a preeminent example of
environmental racism and set
the stage for the environmental
justice movement by fortifying
the connection between issues
pertaining to the environment and
issues of racial equality.
The climax took place in 1982
as the state of North Carolina
planned to relocate 60,000 tons
of
Polychlorinated
Biphenyl
(PCB) contaminated soil to the
rural Warren County, N.C. — a
majority Black community with 24
percent of people living under the
poverty line. The PCB landfill was
feared to leak and contaminate
the community’s water and air
quality, as PCB is a carcinogenic
toxin. However, the people did not
have adequate resources to fend
for themselves, so they resorted
to peaceful protest reminiscent
of those encouraged by Martin
Luther King, Jr.
The scene was best depicted by
an iconic photograph of six Black
men lying face up in the middle
of a country road as six trucks
full of toxic soil are stopped in
the distance. The state ultimately
took advantage of the community,
bypassed the protesting citizens
and built the landfill. The inherent
racism in the land use brought
environmental justice concerns
into the national spotlight.
Despite coming to national
attention over three decades ago
in Warren County, environmental
racism and injustice continue to be
prevalent in society as more than
half of people that live in proximity
to a landfill, hazardous waste
site or other industrial facility
are people of color. In addition,
water contamination plagues low-
income areas around the country
as best exemplified by the lead
issues permeating through Flint.
Therefore,
while
we
are
confronted with the issue of how
to promote a resolution to this
issue, we must also ask how we
can move forward and close the
chapter of environmental racism
and injustice.
For starters, we need to
force businesses to be more
environmentally conscious and
decrease the mass production
of harmful chemicals. Between
Baton
Rouge
and
New
Orleans, communities that are
predominantly minority and low-
income make up “Cancer Alley.”
Cancer Alley contains more than
150
petrochemical
companies
and 17 refineries, all of which take
advantage of poor communities
and damage their health in
exchange for corporate profits.
Just like corporations can
greenwash by fabricating their
reports, politicians can lie to
leverage votes. Therefore, we
need to step up come election
time and vote for candidates that
have a demonstrated interest in
environmental issues to support
their campaign promises. We
cannot have leaders like former
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who
in 2013, despite the injustices in
Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, offered
Shell a $112 million incentive
package with tax exemptions to
create a new factory. Our elected
leaders should not act in terms
of profit. They should serve their
constituents’ best interest.
We need to ensure laws
already put in place to prevent
discrimination
are
properly
put into action. The biggest
obstacle towards resolution is
the government’s neglect to
vigorously enforce the laws on
the books.
With the Earth hanging on
by a thread and on the brink of
catastrophic
and
irreversible
change, we need to prompt action
and to recognize the far-reaching
impacts of our behaviors. We are
not fighting another civil rights
battle, but we are fighting for our
lives as the story of environmental
racism continues to tragically
unfold. The conclusion must
be, then, to eliminate injustices,
especially when its main vehicle
is environmental catastrophe.
I
was raised in a pro-life family.
It was an implicit part of our
Protestant Christianity. The
fundamental ideas underlying our
belief in the sanctity of life were
that life begins at conception and
every human being is endowed with
a unique purpose from our creator.
Psalm 139:16 says, “Your eyes saw
my unformed body; all the days
ordained for me were written in
your book before one of them came
to be.” This Bible passage, as well as
others on the topic of life, leads many
denominations of Christians to
believe God knew us and planned for
us before we were created through
human conception. Therefore, the
second we are fertilized we are not
just another random human, but
rather unique in form and loved
unconditionally by our creator.
For
me
personally,
though
I remained a believer in Jesus
Christ, the transition into my teen
years began to make me question
many of my beliefs, including my
belief in the sanctity of an unborn
life. High school accentuated the
complexity of this issue within me as
people I knew began to experience
pregnancy scares. I spent more
than one panicked night with a
friend wondering how they would
take care of a child financially, if the
father would be supportive, if their
parents would disown them and
if their dreams for the future were
essentially ruined if they chose to
have the child. I began to put myself
in these shoes as well, feeling with
intensity that my whole life could
be altered completely in a moment
if I were to become pregnant. I
also became more invested in the
scientific view of life. Are we really
no more than a clump of cells for
weeks on end? When can a baby in
the womb feel pain? When are the
unborn sentient? Politically and
ethically I began to hear both sides of
a complex debate on when the right
of a life inside the womb trumps the
rights of the mother.
Additionally, I kept being told
by so many of my peers as well as
much of the media that if I didn’t
support a woman’s right to choose
then I was somehow betraying my
own gender. I had also become more
aware of the consequences women
in unplanned pregnancy situations
could potentially face, including
physical and emotional abuse at the
hands of their families and partners,
exacerbated poverty and so much
more. For these reasons my position
as someone who still considered
themselves fairly pro-life had shifted
further away from this long held
belief to a point where I openly
considered myself pro-choice.
Then, I attended an apologetics
conference
through
Summit
Ministries
the
summer
before
my senior year, and that is when
everything changed. Apologetics
essentially is a branch of Christian
theology that attempts to defend
Christianity against objections, not
just through the use of scripture but
through science, philosophy and
ethics. In a lecture given by Christian
elocutor Megan Almon I learned
the most important question in the
abortion debate: “Are the unborn
human?” I was forced to ask myself
this over and over again. At first, I
thought it was fair to say “they are
becoming human.” Then I learned
the scientific study of embryology
affirms that once an egg is fertilized
to become a zygote, it is at once a
“highly specialized, totipotent cell
[that] marks the beginning of each
of us as a unique individual.” From
the moment we become zygotes
we are genetically distinct and
totipotent, meaning that, aside from
the nutrients we will use to grow
from our mother, we have all the
components we need to continue
developing from within as a human
being. We are not becoming human.
We are human from the point of
conception. We are living, we are
distinct and we are whole, meaning
we have all the fundamental
characteristics of a unique living
organism. As philosopher Richard
Stith put it; like a picture taken
on a Polaroid camera that we are
waiting to develop, just because we
can’t see our full form yet does not
mean that we are not fully there.
We aren’t being constructed from
outside forces like pieces of a puzzle
but instead we are developing from
within ourselves, growing just like
one small seed grows into a beautiful
flower.
As
these
scientific
and
philosophical
arguments
began
to sink in for me, I started to ask
myself if I thought it was ok to kill
an innocent child. So much rhetoric
around the abortion debate says
that it is not right to call abortion
murder. Yet if I believed the unborn
were human beings even in the first
stages of their development then
I felt morally compelled to believe
their destruction was murder. This
contradicted so much of what I
had come to believe in the previous
years. All of the arguments I heard
between professors and peers didn’t
really account for the unborn as
being human and endowed with the
same rights as all of us outside of the
womb. They often focused solely on
the rights of the mother. Arguments
like: “As a woman, no one gets to
restrict my autonomy over my
body,” or, “if we force women to
have unwanted children, they may
not receive the care they deserve.”
In addition, some say “Sometimes
women with multiple children
cannot afford to feed another child,
and abortion gives women the
freedom to continue pursuing their
career goals.”
ABBIE BERRINGER | COLUMN
A journey to defending life through science
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.
Abbie Berringer can be reached at
abbieber@umich.edu
Sam Sugerman can be reached at
samsug@umich.edu.
FROM THE DAILY
On the one year anniversary of Parkland
I
t’s now been just over a year since the day of the Parkland,
Fla. shooting, in which 17 students at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School were killed by a gunman. While these
students can never be replaced, their fellow classmates saw this
moment as an inflection point in our nation’s history, choosing to
take action and try to ensure that no other student has to suffer
such a tragic fate.
Sustained
collective action is
what is needed to
inspire change
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
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.