Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang

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

We are mistrustful of 
CSG campaigns that make 
sweeping, 
underdeveloped 
promises for a number of 
reasons. For example, though 
MVision’s 
candidates 
won 
the 
executive 
seats 
last 
year, their campaign with 
platform planks is no longer 
available online. This makes 
it difficult to hold the newly 
elected leaders accountable 
for 
the 
various 
promises 
made to students. The year 
before, we saw negligent 
initiatives yield a Campus 
Affordability Guide that was 
out of touch with the needs of 
lower-income students.
Furthermore, the Engage 
Michigan Party, and their 
platform planks, resemble a 
generic, mixed bag of half-
baked ideas harvested from 
previous 
CSG 
campaigns. 
We do not see how Engage 
Michigan will act differently 
when its policies are both 
tepid and underdeveloped. 
For 
example, 
when 
discussing 
affordability, 
they 
advocate 
providing 
access to public microwaves 
on campus. While this may 
save students from buying 
food by allowing them to 
bring their own, this doesn’t 
address the more pressing 
issue of food insecurity. The 
burden of proving whether or 
not this policy would effect 
change ultimately falls on 
their shoulders, and they 
have yet to substantiate the 
claim that increasing access 
to microwaves is a legitimate 
means to solve the problem 
of food insecurity that is 
endemic to many students 
across campus.
The weak and indirect 
plan 
to 
address 
food 

insecurity identified above 
is found in the campaign’s 
“Accessibility 
and 
Affordability” (or, as they 
called it on their website, 
“accessability”) unit, while 
similarly inadequate plans 
are made across each sector 
of their campaign. In terms 
of “Sustainability,” Engage 
Michigan refers to building a 
five-year sustainability plan, 
stating that they will “work 
with university officers and 
student 
organizations 
to 
build a plan that addresses 
the specific needs of the 
university and lays out clear 
and concise action items.” Yet, 
Engage 
Michigan 
chooses 
to 
not 
establish 
specific 
changes 
the 
University 
should make to become more 
environmentally 
conscious, 
opting 
instead 
to 
simply 
acknowledge 
that 
there 
should be a discussion.

While 
we 
admire 
the 
spirit 
and 
authenticity 
of Argha’s campaign, we 
don’t see how he can truly 
implement his policy goals 
without a proper slate of 
representatives. 
Moreover, 
though we appreciate the 
light-hearted and personable 
elements of the campaign, 
we want students on campus 

to vote for candidates who 
warrant respect and exhibit 
professionalism 
in 
their 
campaign and their role. 
So instead of endorsing 
a candidate, we want to 
highlight 
the 
bodies 
on 
campus 
doing 
diligent 
work to promote positive 
change. For example, the 
Climate Action Movement 
has been tenacious in their 
efforts to demand a meeting 
with 
University 
leaders, 
risking arrest for carbon 
neutrality by 2030. Or the 
Prison Creative Arts Project, 
known as PCAP, which is 
currently 
hosting 
one 
of 
the largest exhibitions of 
art by incarcerated people 
in 
the 
country 
on 
our 
campus and has provided 
artistic resources to those 
locked 
in 
the 
criminal 
justice system. Or Music 
Matters. Or HeForShe. Or 
any of the other countless 
organizations 
making 
a 
valiant push to impact our 
University.
This is not to diminish 
the work of CSG, whose 
members are undoubtedly 
intent on having a positive 
influence 
on 
campus, 
which we’ve seen much of 
this year. For example, in 
September they passed their 
Buses to Ballots resolution 
encouraging 
students 
to 
vote. However, because the 
entire campus is allowed 
to vote for CSG’s leaders, it 
elevates 
their 
importance 
above other equally or more 
effective 
organizations. 
While we don’t discourage 
students from voting this 
week, we hope they see 
CSG for what it is: another 
student organization.

DYLAN BERGER | COLUMN

Why we are losing the struggle against hate
W 
 

ith last week’s heinous 
terrorist 
attack 
on 
two 
mosques 
in 
Christchurch, New Zealand, the 
menace of white supremacy has 
once again reared its ugly head. 
The terrorist, who ought to be 
rendered nameless, gunned down 
50 worshipers in cold blood at the 
Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood 
Islamic Centre on the basis of racial 
and religious hatred. The attack in 
Christchurch represents the surging 
threat of white supremacy and other 
hate-filled movements worldwide, 
including here in the United States.
However, the conversation around 
this tragedy has been hijacked by 
politicians seeking to use this grave 
threat to score cheap political points 
on their opponents. For example, 
some have even tried to blame 
President Donald Trump for the 
horrific attack in Christchurch, 
despite his condemnation of the 
attack. The end result of this shallow 
discourse is more division within 
our society while hatred continues 
to grow unencumbered. In the wake 
of this frightening threat, we must 
instead unite to combat hate with 
strengthened communities.
Fortunately, we the American 
people have far more power to purge 
our society of hate than our elected 
representatives do. Our founding 
fathers envisioned a nation of 
minutemen, with patriotic Americans 
taking action to better our society. 
Lately, however, our civic engagement 
hasn’t lived up to the legacy of our 
exceptional nation. By becoming 
more engaged in our individual 
communities, we have the capacity to 
rejuvenate American civic life from 
the ground-up. In doing so, we will 
ensure that no one continues to be 
left to fall through the cracks and turn 
towards hate.
To defeat the rising threat of white 
supremacy, we must reject the divisive 
rhetoric of our leaders and return to 
our tradition stretching back from the 
Revolutionary War to World War II 
of banding together to effect change 
from the grassroots level. A more 
cohesive society and vibrant civic 
life will allow for the light of joining 
together for a common purpose to 
drown out the darkness of hateful 

movements.
The increasing digitalization of 
our society has allowed us to connect 
with friends and family across the 
world while, paradoxically, making it 
that much more difficult to connect 
with those closest to us. For example, 
a 2016 study involving more than 1,700 
people found an increase in risk of 
depression and anxiety among people 
who used a large number of social 
media platforms. In addition to that, 
another 2014 study found people who 
browsed Facebook for 20 minutes 
reported a more negative mood than 
those who had just browsed the 
internet. While there’s also plenty of 
evidence to show social media as a 
positive force, it’s clear there are strong 
negative behavioral effects as well.
With the combination of social 
media’s negative effects with a 
meltdown of the social fabric in 
areas left behind by economic 
globalization, we see a growing 
population disgruntled and without 
a community to which they can turn. 
Proponents of all kinds of hate — from 
white supremacy to radical Islamic 
extremism — have taken advantage of 
this situation to bring in new recruits, 
who are typically disaffected young 
men. As savvy online operators, 
peddlers of hate radicalize their 
socially isolated prey remotely through 
the internet. Unlike more traditional 
national security threats, digital 
radicalization is especially dangerous 
because it has no discernible face and 
can enter millions of American homes 
undetected.
Twisted souls finally find the 
meaning and belonging they are 
craving in hate groups. Explaining 
this phenomenon, Jessica Stern, 
a research professor at Boston 
University’s Pardee School of Global 
Studies and co-author of “ISIS: 
The State of Terror,” said in an 
interview to CNN Business last week, 
“They’re picking up an ideology that 
helps them justify their rage, their 
disappointment, and it’s something 
available.” As Stern illustrated, the 
proliferation of white supremacy and 
other forms of hate is rooted in the 
lack of a greater sense of common 
purpose among a portion of the 
population. In joining a hate group, 
these predators finally receive the 

attention they are craving, even if it is 
negative.
The lack of belonging felt by white 
supremacists in mainstream societies 
breeds envy toward communities 
that embody the common meaning 
and purpose they never had. 
Tragically, this envy engenders the 
reprehensible acts of hate dominating 
our headlines all too often as of late. 
While we’re still learning more about 
what motivated the Christchurch 
terrorist, it’s clear the rottenness of 
envy afflicted him deeply. He even 
admitted in his 74-page manifesto 
of hatred that he wasn’t originally 
planning to attack New Zealand, 
but later chose to do so because of 
its status as a beacon for peaceful 
multiculturalism. 
The 
terrorist 
went on to state that his ultimate 
goal was to ignite an American race 
war, shattering the thriving sense of 
community of which he is so envious. 
Instead of acquiescing to terror, 
we must double down on our efforts 
to build a more cohesive society. 
Pillars of our society, such as houses 
of worship and recreational sports 
leagues, serve as a bulwark against 
hate. They provide a forceful 
alternative to the movements of 
hate currently reaching so many of 
our disaffected and socially isolated 
neighbors. By continuing to build up 
our cornerstones of community, we 
will provide those so removed from 
society with a way out from the lure 
of turning to hate. In fact, analysis of 
our current at-risk programs shows 
that youth all across America are 
becoming more productive members 
of society because of these programs. 
In lieu of finding belonging in a 
movement of hate, they can find 
belonging by connecting with others. 
Working together for something 
positive will, ultimately, prove far 
more powerful than the movements 
of hate currently ravaging our society. 
We must first, however, rededicate 
ourselves to working together to 
build up the infrastructure that 
allows cornerstones of community to 
reach out to at-risk youth.

HANNAH FRENCH | OP-ED

Dylan Berger can be reached at 

dylberge@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

On CSG and student orgs

V

oting for Central Student Government candidates opens Wednesday 
after a quietly held debate last week. The candidates include 
presidential hopeful Ben Gerstein and vice-presidential candidate 
Isabelle Blanchard of the Engage Michigan Party. They face Shub Argha, 
who is running for president without a party. Though the candidates all 
ran and debated a slew of issues, and we encourage students to vote for 
whomever they view as most capable for the position, this year, the editorial 
board has decided not to endorse a candidate.

J 

was napping on a couch in 
East Quad when he was 
approached by a University 
of Michigan police officer and 
asked to leave. The officer and 
the residential staff thought that 
he was experiencing homelessness 
because of the way he was dressed. 
J is financially independent from his 
family and attending school with the 
aid of scholarships. He was growing 
out a beard. J is Indian-American.
M was hammocking over the 
summer on Packard Street when 
officers took down her license 
number because she was not 
supposed to hammock on University 
property, despite being off-campus 
and despite the numerous hammocks 
in the Diag at the time. When she was 
called into a disciplinary hearing, she 
was asked how she could make up for 
the harmful impact of her actions. M 
is Arab-American.
L was working out in the 
University gym over the summer 
when officers arrested him. He was 
a freshman, and had just finished 
his spring term classes, so he would 
not be enrolled again (and hence, 
eligible to use the gym) until that 
September. He was cuffed, escorted 
across campus and kicked out of the 
University for breaking and entering. 
He later lost a job offer with the NFL 
due to this incident. L is African-
American.
Is this what safety on campus 
looks like? The incidents described 
above are (relatively) minor. They 
did not result in felony charges, but 
they do illustrate the targeted and 
non-random nature of policing in 
our community. When events like 
these pose a risk to students’ or 
staff’s place at the University, the 
role and purpose of the University’s 
involvement in its students’ and 
staffs’ lives must be reexamined.
The University’s new policy, the 
“Required Disclosure of Felony 
Charges and/or Felony Convictions”, 
requires 
faculty, 
staff, 
student 
employees, volunteers and visiting 
scholars 
who 
find 
themselves 
convicted of a felony, and even those 
merely charged but not convicted, to 
report it to the University within one 
week.
The University of Michigan 
already requires all prospective 
undergraduate 
and 
graduate 
students, faculty members and 
staff employees to disclose any 

previous criminal record during 
the admissions or employment 
application process, a procedure that 
has been increasingly abandoned by 
other educational institutions due 
to a lack of evidence that it ensures 
safety. When the University imposed 
the self-disclosure felony policy 
this winter, it added one more layer 
to the web of ways in which the 
University ingratiates itself with 
the criminal justice system. As an 
educational institution, is it outside 
both the University’s responsibilities 
and qualifications to be taking on 
the role of jury or judge in criminal 
proceedings. The Board of Regents 
and the University at large should be 
presuming our innocence, not our 
guilt.
I am part of Umich Behind 
Bars, a student-led movement in 
collaboration and solidarity with 
staff, community organizations and 
other movements on campus toward 
a more comprehensive program for 
diversity, equity and inclusion. We’re 
calling for the University to rescind 
the felony disclosure policy, Ban 
the Box, and eliminate background 
checks. More than 1,800 students, 
staff and community stakeholders 
have signed onto the policy changes 
we support, outlined in the Carceral 
State Project’s open letter.
In the years that my fellow 
organizers and I have been at the 
University, we’ve seen the regents 
and other officials act on their best 
intentions and create successful, 
productive spaces for dialogue 
and healing, practices that protect 
students at critical times, and widely 
successful educational campaigns, 
such as those on safe drinking. We 
know that good can come from a 
critically well-thought-out policy 
and/or 
University 
action. 
The 
University is, after all, “Committed 
to a policy of equal opportunity for 
all persons and does not discriminate 
on the basis of race, color, national 
origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, gender 
expression, 
disability, 
religion, 
height, weight, or veteran status in 
employment, educational programs 
and activities, and admissions.”
I believe that the felony self-
disclosure policy did come from 
this same set of intentions and was 
created out of this same concern 
for students’ safety on campus. No 
University 
community 
member 

should feel at risk, and those who 
actively undermine that and harm 
the community should not be allowed 
to continue doing so. However, 
police and prosecutorial discretion 
leaves people who are charged 
with felonies, which could include 
a wide range of severity, at risk of 
inequitable charge and conviction 
practices. The impact of the felony 
self-disclosure policy will have vast 
and disproportionate consequences 
for certain communities, preventing 
them from entering or staying at 
the University, while providing no 
prevention of harm or assurance of 
students’ safety.
This policy, while coming from 
a good place, is only going to make 
staff and students who are already 
particularly vulnerable feel that they 
don’t belong, will not be supported in 
the face of adversity, or should leave 
before something happens. Where 
students are facing police action 
for nonviolent protest over climate 
change action, and where students 
practically expect danger at a vigil 
for Muslim victims of violence, the 
University’s duty to protect should 
take the form of mitigating, rather 
than exacerbating, the effects of over-
policing and surveillance of students. 
This starts with rescinding carceral 
policies like the felony disclosure 
policy, which continues to punish 
our communities for their unwitting 
interactions with the criminal justice 
system. It starts there, and ends with 
listening, learning and healing as a 
community.
Students who believe that the 
University has work to do to move 
forward alongside a changing world 
can join us on our Facebook page or 
email us at behindbars@umich.edu 
— and all are encouraged to come 
to the Board of Regents’ meeting 
on Thursday, March 28, 3 p.m. 
at the Richard L. Postma Family 
Clubhouse.
Tag 
us 
@umichbehindbars 
and 
tell 
@UMichRegents, 
@
DrMarkSchlissel, 
and 
@
LauritaThomas1 that we want DEI 
now.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Dear regents: Felony disclosure is not safety

Hannah French is a part of a team 

of organizers with Umich Behind 

Bars. This piece is a personal account 

influenced deeply by the context, 

voices, and collaboration of individuals 

and communities impacted by and 

organizing against this policy.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan 
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and 
its corresponding personal, academic and legal 
implications. Submission information can be found at 
https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2019.

We are mistrustful 
of CSG campaigns 
that make 
sweeping, 
underdeveloped 
promises

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.

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-8:30 PM at our 
newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss 
national, state and campus affairs.

