Shapiro said he regularly 
seeks 
out 
perspectives 
contrary to his own.
“I actually like multiple 
opinions,” Shapiro said. “I am 
in favor of hearing multiple 
points of view.” 
Shapiro’s 
discussion 
focused heavily on the threat 
of 
government 
compulsion. 
He said the current political 
climate 
champions 
a 
government that extends too 
far into citizens’ lives. 
“When 
government 
is 
activated to invade the rights 
of other people, even for the 
purported good of the many, 
that’s 
when 
government 
is 
a 
bully,” 
Shapiro 
said. 
“That’s what we are seeing 
increasingly these days. The 
call for socialism, in essence, 
is a call to invade the rights of 
others, on behalf of yourself or 
on behalf of the greater good.”
LSA junior Kate Westa, vice 
chair of YAF, said Shapiro’s 
decision to accept the invitation 
to speak at the University 
was 
fueled 
by 
a 
growing 
movement among conservative 
speakers to promote right-
wing 
ideologies 
among 
traditionally 
left-leaning 
communities, 
noting 
the 
frequent protests on campus 
and the recent movement to 
divest from companies that 
do business with Israel. Westa 
compared the University to 
the University of California, 
Berkeley, a school with a well-
known liberal atmosphere.

“Michigan 
is 
such 
a 
powerhouse in the Big 10 for 
liberals,” Westa said. “I think 
that’s why a lot of conservative 
speakers are drawn to it. I 
think the first thing that 
comes to people’s minds when 
they think of leftist colleges 
is Berkeley and those kinds 
of places, but lately with the 
BDS movement and protests 
happening … a lot of people 
are realizing that we are going 
through a lot of the same things 
that Berkeley is, and want to 
come here and fight that.”
Shapiro 
concluded 
his 
opening speech by discussing 
how 
the 
restoration 
of 
American values was key to 
maintaining a unified social 
fabric, not government policy 
predicated on compulsion.
“If 
you 
want 
to 
fuel 
America … then we need to get 
together and we need to form 
a social framework without 
government 
forcing 
people 
to do so,” Shapiro said. “Then 
what we end up with is a 
government too big for anyone 
to control and a government 
that 
in 
essence 
ends 
up 
controlling all of us.”
After his talk, Shapiro held 
a Q&A session, during which 
audience members broached 
various topics, ranging from 
abortion to school lunches. A 
student asked Shapiro if he 
considered the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 a violation of individual 
freedoms because it took away 
people’s ability to decide with 
whom they wanted to work 
or do business. Shapiro said 
while he personally opposed 

racism, he did not believe 
the government was properly 
situated to prohibit people 
from discriminating against 
one another.
“I don’t think the law has 
any role whatsoever in banning 
race-based 
discrimination 
by private actors,” Shapiro 
said. “If I don’t have a right to 
your services then I certainly 
don’t have a right to ask the 
government to require you 
to provide me those services. 
That 
means 
discriminatory 
people are not punished by 
government, they are punished 
by everyone else who won’t 
go 
to 
the 
discriminatory 
restaurant 
because 
they 
realize 
it’s 
discriminatory. 
They answer to the market.”
LSA sophomore Raj Aryal 
attended the talk. He praised 
Shapiro’s commitment to fact-
based arguments.
“I went to the Shapiro 
event because I align with 
him ideologically,” Aryal said. 
“I really like his messages of 
having diverse opinions and 
perspectives on campus, and I 
wanted to hear a conservative 
voice … I feel that there’s a 
lot within the conservative 
movement that is controversial 
… I like the way he addresses 
his critics and how he leans 
more on the intellectual side of 
arguments.”
About two dozen protestors 
gathered 
on 
the 
steps 
of 
Rackham prior to Shapiro’s 
talk, lining the entrance as 
audience 
members 
arrived. 
They flew an LGBT pride flag 
and carried posters in support 

of transgender people. 
Robert 
Jay, 
media 
director 
for 
Metro-Detroit 
Political 
Action 
Network, 
an intersectional civil rights 
group, said hosting outspoken 
commentators 
like 
Shapiro 
potentially 
normalizes 
the 
dehumanization of minority 
identities. 
“It’s 
a 
great 
concern,” 
Jay 
said. 
“Anytime 
you’re 
promoting 
language 
that 
dehumanizes people, you’re 
conditioning 
people 
to 
accept 
dehumanization. 
No 
matter what reason, you’re 
dehumanizing someone. Once 
people get comfortable with 
that will start applying that 
to different things they don’t 
understand.”
Counter-protesters 
in 
support of Shapiro assembled 
across 
the 
street 
from 
Rackham. Among them was 
Batts 
Adams, 
a 
resident 
from Lansing who supports 
Shapiro. Adams said having 
conservative 
speakers 
on 
campus is crucial to promote 
freedom of speech. 
“It’s a public university and 
being a public university and 
funded by the government, 
they should uphold the U.S. 
Constitution,” 
Adams 
said. 
“The U.S. Constitution grants 
every U.S. citizen the right to 
the freedom of speech, and 
so if somebody wants to come 
here on campus and they want 
to assemble and exercise their 
freedom of speech, they should 
be allowed to, whether I agree 
with or disagree with their 
personal views.”

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, March 13, 2019 — 3A

“Thanks, also, to the University 
of Michigan History Department, 
which apparently is sponsoring an 
event titled, ‘When Provocateurs 
Dabble in History: Ben Shapiro 
and the Enwhitenment,’ which 
seems mean … which will be really 
fascinating to hear how these 
history professors critique a book 
they haven’t read since it’s not 
released until next week,” Shapiro 
said in his speech.
At the History Club discussion, 
Berg 
acknowledged 
that 
the 
panel had not yet read the book, 
and 
instead 
focused 
on 
its 
controversial title.
“We haven’t read the book, so 
you can’t debunk something that 
you don’t know …” Berg said. “We 
latched onto the title of something 
that is deeply problematic.”
Berg introduced the event by 
discussing the importance of 
accurately reporting history.
“To me, when I see the use of 
history in the public sphere I think 
it’s a great thing, but I also think 
it’s important that you don’t use 
it to just provoke … rather than in 
a sincere intellectual way or in a 
sincere political way,” Berg said.
Berg 
discussed 
the 
Enlightenment’s relationship to 
his book title’s emphasis on reason. 
She suggested Shapiro’s book title 
fails to recognize the negative 
consequences arising from the 
Enlightenment 
period, 
citing 
genocide, slavery and imperial 
regimes.
“If 
you 
think 
about 
the 
Enlightenment as a source of 
thoughts and ideals that made 
all of those events, both the 
achievements of Western society 
and societies elsewhere possible 
... but also those discontents 
that usually we can relegate to 
aberrations of history,” Berg said.
Panelist 
Angela 
Dillard, 
associate dean for Undergraduate 
Education, 
continued 
Berg’s 
narrative on the importance of 
history.
“There’s a national debate about 
history,” Dillard said. “I thought, 
this is a great thing to want to do, 
to think about how so many of 
the arguments that we’re having 
ideologically and politically really 
are about the nature of history, 
and what we think it is.”
Dillard 
suggested 
Shapiro’s 
idealization of reason frames 

historical events in a problematic 
manner.
“It’s a really horrifying vision 
about not accounting for the 
damage of slavery and colonialism 
and 
the 
robbing 
people 
of 
personhood,” said Dillard.
The 
panel 
also 
discussed 
Shapiro’s other political stances, 
including his critique of higher 
education 
institutions 
in 
his 
2004 book titled, “Brainwashed: 
How Universities Indoctrinate 
America’s Youth.” LSA senior 
Nikola Jaksic, Vice President 
of the History Club criticized 
Shapiro’s insinuation of students’ 
lack of autonomy.
“As a student of history, it’s 
pretty 
infantilizing 
to 
have 
him imply that I am somehow 
unable to have agency in my own 
education,” Jaksic said. “That no 
matter what I do, I’m just going to 
be indoctrinated into this dogma 
that he so fears.”
Associate history professor John 
Carson discussed the perspectives 
of a Shapiro supporter.
“Here’s someone who is telling 
me that at least some of the things 
that I have always believed about 
democracy and about religion are 
true …” Carson said. “(Shapiro’s 
ideology) 
re-instantiates 
a 
narrative and a world where they 
feel very lost as to what’s going 
on.”
Prior to the event, the History 
Club received pushback from 
critics on Twitter and Facebook, 
who suggested the panel provided 
a biased view of the subject. Jaksic 
addressed this during the event. 
“We didn’t want to sacrifice 
having an explicitly conservative 
voice at the expense of, one, making 
sure that they people that are 
presenting … feel welcome and safe 
in the space and, two, to ‘pretend’ 
that there is any discussion in our 
history community about these 
topics,” Jaksic said.
Berg 
said 
that 
while 
she 
appreciates a critical mindset, she 
stands by the panel’s qualification 
and depth.
“The accusation of bias is 
one 
that 
I’m 
fundamentally 
sympathetic to,” Berg said. “I want 
my students to disagree. To me, it’s 
a signal to the kind of work that 
we do that people feel comfortable 
doing that … I don’t think that the 
panel was biased in a way that 
was trying to erase various parts, 
I think people were generally 
honest about their intellectual 
trajectory.”

PANEL
From Page 1A

CSG
From Page 1A

IRAN
From Page 1A

SHAPIRO
From Page 1A

RACISM
From Page 1A

LSA 
sophomore 
Maya 
Chamra told The Daily after the 
event she felt the teach-in, a form 
of 
alternative 
programming, 
was the appropriate response to 
Shapiro’s visit. 
“I think that the idea of 
alternative 
programming 
is 
much 
more 
effective 
when 
responding to somebody like 
Ben Shapiro, because he thrives 
off of this perception that he is 
just presenting facts, and he’s 
presenting information, and he’s 
very logical and pragmatic, and 
that’s why a lot of people are 
attracted to him,” Chamra said. 
“And it’s not because they have 
very extreme views — they’re 
just intrigued by what he says.”
Chamra said the teach-in did 
not feed into Shapiro’s narrative. 
The teach-in itself was attended 
by more than 30 students and 
focused on providing a history 
of white supremacy at the 
University activists say is largely 
ignored. 
“I think we can make change 
just starting by educating people, 
and I think a teach-in is much 
more effective in doing that, 
than say protesting, because 
Ben Shapiro and the organizers 
for that event can predict all 
the tactics for protesting or just 
buying tickets, and it feeds very 
well into their narrative, but a 

teach-in does not look good to 
them,” Chamra said. “It doesn’t 
work well with their narrative 
because all we’re just trying to 
do is educate people.”
Samei stressed that the goal 
of the event was to highlight 
the University’s role in allowing 
white supremacists to speak, 
including their decision to pay 
for Shapiro and other speakers’ 
security. 
“This particular individual 
really likes to create intellectual 
debate around saying really 
harmful things to people,” Samei 
said. “So instead of allowing for 
a platform for that violence to 
occur, we were like okay, we’re 
not going to make this between 
organizers 
and 
the 
white 
supremacists. We’re gonna make 
this the elephant in the room, 
which is that the University 
is paying for his security, and 
the University has paid for the 
security of white supremacists, 
which is actually a lot of money.”
While the organizers of the 
event chose to utilize alternative 
programming for this particular 
speech, some maintained that 
direct action tactics are also 
successful. 
Music, 
Theatre 
& 
Dance 
senior 
Isabelle 
Malnar’s 
organization, Radfun, a social 
justice organization, co-hosted 
the 
teach-in. 
Malnar 
said 
direct action, such as protests 
and marches, were effective in 

preventing white supremacist 
Richard Spencer from choosing 
to speak at the University, even 
if the University did not pursue 
legal action to prevent him 
from speaking. The University’s 
decision 
to 
allow 
Richard 
Spencer to speak last year 
caused controversy and spurred 
a protest movement dubbed 
#StopSpencer. 
“I would like to add that things 
like that have been successful,” 
Malnar said. “Last year there 
was a lot of direct action work 
against Richard Spencer and he 
didn’t end up coming, so I think 
that it’s not good to say that it 
isn’t always successful, but in 
this instance we thought more 
of a teaching and healing and 
discussion space would be more 
effective for this particular 
event.”
Hoai An Pham, LSA senior, 
and Vidhya Aravind, a master’s 
student 
in 
the 
School 
of 
Information, led the teach-in. 
Pham and Aravind started their 
presentation by speaking to the 
power of student activism. 
“Everything good at this 
University 
exists 
because 
of 
student 
activism,” 
Pham 
said. “That includes SAPAC 
(Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Awareness Center), Spectrum 
Center, 
the 
Department 
of 
African American Studies, and 
others.”
The panel later addressed 

the 
ways 
they 
believe 
the 
University has been complicit 
in 
white 
supremacy, 
such 
as 
administration’s 
initial 
refusal to rename the building 
formerly known as C.C. Little, 
a eugenicist, and the decline of 
African-American 
enrollment 
rates 
at 
the 
University 
in 
response to affirmative action 
lawsuits. 
Chamra said most members 
of the U-M community are 
unaware of the University’s 
history with white supremacy, 
something 
she 
claims 
the 
University 
has 
purposefully 
worked to hide. 
“I don’t think it’s widely 
known at all and I think the 
University 
plays 
a 
part 
in 
making sure there’s not a lot of 
bad information spread about 
them and it’s really fallen on 
organizers and activists to make 
the information known not just 
to themselves, but to the broader 
public,” Chamra said. “That’s 
why an event like this is really 
important, because it’s really 
hard to get involved in activism 
if you’d like to get involved, but 
it’s also even harder to learn 
about the ways in which the 
University’s been resistant to 
activism. And it really isn’t 
widely known and it’s really 
a shame. Because we could 
make a lot of great changes if 
more people knew about this 
information.”

Read more online at 

michigandaily.com

In September, the U.S. Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals ruled the University 

must change its sexual misconduct 

policy to give the student who is accused 

of sexual assault the chance to cross-

examine the accuser. The University’s 

previous policy did not require a cross-

examination or an in-person hearing, 

and the policy was revised to include 

these aspects in October.

Following the ruling, the new student 

group Jane Roe created a petition asking 

the University to adjust the policy to 

have the cross-examination conducted 

by an advisor instead of the alleged 

perpetrator. As of March 12, the petition 

had 64,824 signatures.

Jane Roe continued their efforts 

to change the policy by meeting with 

a sexual misconduct case manager, 

according to Walker. 

“We then met with a sexual 

misconduct case manager in the Office 

of Student Conflict Resolution,” Walker 

said. “In this meeting, we inquired 

about why this policy was implemented, 

whether students were notified about 

and given a chance to critique the policy 

and whether the University have plans 

to revise the policy, especially its cross-

examination model. Similar to other 

exchanges with administrators, this 

conversation followed a pattern.”

Walker further said the administrator 

told them the University did not want 

to turn an administrative process into 

a court-like proceeding and feared not 

all students would be represented by 

counsel. According to Walker, proposed 

Title IX regulations require institutions 

to provide an adviser for the duration of 

cross-examination.

Walker said Jane Roe insisted the 

University include student input by 

forming an advisory board to revise the 

policy and to allow students to provide 

feedback, as well as to notify students 

about the policy change.

“Although the University fulfilled 

our secondary request, the cross-

examination model has not yet been 

revised,” Walker said. “As long as this 

policy stands, it will be applied to every 

single student case of sexual assault 

at the University of Michigan. This is 

likely to have a devastating impact on 

survivors and on our campus safety.”

Sandberg agreed with Walker and 

said the policy did not ensure student 

safety at the University.

“Enforcing this policy is a gross 

deviation 
from 
the 
University’s 

responsibility to protect its students,” 

Sandberg said. “This form of cross-

examination is unnecessary, and I 

personally consider it to be cruel.”

Sandberg 
called 
the 
cross-

examination model inhumane and said 

the University’s investigative process 

will have consequences for both those 

who go through with the process or 

those who decide against it.

“The University of Michigan has 

argued that those who decided on this 

cross-examination model have the best 

interest of survivors of sexual assault 

in mind,” Sandberg said. “To rephrase, 

the University actually believes that 

survivors of sexual assault would find 

it less traumatic to be grilled by their 

rapist or assaulter than by a third party. 

I can’t speak for all survivors of sexual 

assault, but I believe I can speak for 

the vast majority when I say that being 

questioned by one’s perpetrator would 

be significantly more traumatic than by 

any attorney.”

LSA 
freshman 
Sam 
Braden 

questioned the equality of the policy. He 

discussed the possible inequity present 

if one of the parties can afford a more 

expensive lawyer and asked about how 

the University assigns a defense attorney 

to students.

“I know we say the whole court 

system is very equal, but people who 

can afford better lawyers are more likely 

going to win a case,” Braden said.

CSG Speaker Austin Glass, Rackham 

student, said although he understands 

equity concerns regarding the policy, 

clinical studies have shown a third 

party agent should conduct a cross-

examination. He said administrators 

have not found the need to include 

student voices in the creation of the 

policy.

“I recognize your equity concerns, 

but at the end of the day, the current 

system is almost unbelievable,” Glass 

said. “To a passive observer, I think the 

attempt here is to address the fact that 

the system is one which, in discussion 

with administrators, the student office 

on this hasn’t found any significant 

desire to make change to.”

The Assembly referred the resolution 

to the Resolutions and Communications 

committees.

During the event and as 
described in his book, Rezaian 
explained he was imprisoned 
at 
the 
start 
of 
the 
Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, 
an agreement between Iran and 
the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, 
United Kingdom, United States 
and Germany) regarding the 
Iranian nuclear program. In 
an interview with U.S. News, 
Rezaian described how because 
he was taken by the IRGC, who 
did not want the Iran deal to 
continue, he quickly became a 
part of the negotiations.
“So I see my arrest in that 
context,” Rezaian said in the 
U.S. News interview. “As an 
attempt by internal forces in the 
country to make problems for 
the (President) Hassan Rouhani 
administration at the time when 
they were engaged in these 
negotiations with world powers 
including the United States.”
Rezaian 
said 
during 
his 
imprisonment his interrogators 
attempted to get him to admit to 
espionage. Though he found it 
difficult, Rezaian said he never 
admitted to this crime, which 
he did not commit. McCarren 
commended him for holding 
his ground in the high-pressure 
environment.
“You’re not the first journalist 
to be held in prison,” McCarren 

said. “But there seemed to be a 
pattern where journalists could 
be released if they would state 
that a charge was real, even if it 
seemed like no one had believed 
the charges. You didn’t do that, 
you stood your ground … As a 
journalist, I was incredibly proud 
that you would do that.”
LSA 
senior 
Olivia 
Abedi 
described to The Daily after the 
event how valuable she believed 
Rezaian’s 
actions 
against 
pleading guilty were, especially 
for students.
“In cases like these, staying 
true to yourself and what you’re 
doing ring through,” Abedi said. 
“The fact that Jason never plead 
guilty to make things easier on 
himself was a good thing I think 
for all students and anybody to 
understand.”
McCarren and the National 
Press Club, as well as the general 
spread in media awareness of 
Rezaian’s situation, contributed 
greatly to the release of Rezaian. 
Lynette Clemetson, director of 
Wallace House, described the 
organization’s vast efforts toward 
Rezaian’s case.
“Bill and his colleagues at 
the National Press Club fought 
tirelessly for Jason’s release, 
even at one point holding a read-
a-thon where they read Jason’s 
work for 24 hours in shifts,” 
Clemetson said. “They made sure 
that Jason’s name stayed in the 
news and that his story stayed in 

the news and that pressure stayed 
on the officials who needed to 
take getting him out of there 
seriously.”
The 
conversation 
between 
McCarren and Rezaian ended 
with a discussion on Anthony 
Bourdain, who not only made 
an episode of his CNN show 
“Anthony 
Bourdain: 
Parts 
Unknown” 
about 
Iran 
and 
Rezaian, advocating on his behalf 
while Rezaian was in prison, but 
also published Rezaian’s book. 
Rezaian described his profound 
gratitude for the late journalist.
“I think for Yeganeh and me, 
he’s our champion,” Rezaian 
said. “Lots of people had seen 
the episode of ‘Parts Unknown’ 
that we were on, some people 
know that he was a big and vocal 
advocate for us when we were 
in prison, but after we were 
released, he became a friend, and 
he was an incredible source of 
advice and inspiration.”
The formal event ended with 
recognition of Emilio Gutiérrez 
Soto, a Mexican journalist in 
the University’s Knight-Wallace 
Fellowship program. Gutiérrez 
was recently denied asylum in 
the U.S., despite his fear for his 
safety upon returning to Mexico 
because of his reporting on 
crimes committed by members 
of the military in Chihuahua, 
Mexico.
At 
the 
event, 
McCarren 
welcomed Gutiérrez onto the 

stage and presented him with 
an honorary membership to the 
National Press Club, created for 
honoring outstanding journalists. 
An emotional Gutiérrez stood 
before a standing ovation from 
the audience as he received the 
recognition.
“We have never extended 
this honor to an international 
journalist, someone who is not a 
U.S. citizen, and we want to do 
that today for Emilio Gutiérrez,” 
McCarren said while presenting 
the membership. “We want him 
to be one of our group, and to be 
one of that special group within 
our group.”
Abedi 
described 
the 
importance of students learning 
about different cultures through 
the experiences of journalists 
such as Gutiérrez and Rezaian, 
and how understanding these 
experiences can help spread 
awareness globally.
“It’s important to highlight the 
different parts of the world you 
may not understand,” Abedi said. 
“For instance, I think Iran is a 
beautiful country. I’ve been there, 
I love so many parts of Iranian 
culture, but unfortunately, the 
government and the treatment 
of its citizens isn’t always just. I 
think it’s important for students 
to see the inner workings of other 
countries and firsthand accounts 
of what people have done in order 
to raise awareness throughout 
the world.”

