Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, March 28, 2019
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
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Interdisciplinary art is our primary method of social change
I
was on my way to Mason
Hall when, out of curiosity,
I decided to stop inside
the Samuel T. Dana
Building, home of the
School for Environment
and Sustainability at the
University of Michigan.
I
remembered
how
I would always walk
past this building on
my way to class and
how I would think
about its layout on the
inside, wondering if it
was anything special
since it always felt like one of
the University’s unique sub-
institutions. After noticing a
man walk inside without having
to provide special authorization,
I committed to my decision
and followed in his direction.
What I would come to realize
after my experience in the
Dana Building is how often we
overlook an influential source of
information: Art.
Once inside, I looked at the
map for a general atrium area
that I could explore before
exiting the building on the
opposite side to head to class.
Upon entering Ford Commons,
my eye was immediately caught
by what was on the far wall: Five
large paintings hanging evenly
spaced, basking in yellow light as
if in a showcase. One displayed
a black and white shape that
curled and weaved like a brain.
Another
one
displayed
what
looked like a moonlit evening
in a swamp, seemingly magical
yet it felt tarnished. Another one
showed a stack of logs that laid
as though they were too damp to
burn, articulating a charcoaled yet
washed look. I didn’t know what
to think of these. They were dark,
but I could feel their essence of
beauty and emotion, using black,
gray, brown and green tones to
portray themselves as the nature
that can be seen just outside the
heart of this city. Looking far to
the left, I noticed a synopsis and
found an explanation for this
peculiarity.
The artist who created these
is Helen Gotlib, a graduate
student at the University’s very
own School of Art and Design.
She calls her work on display
“Natural Abstractions,” a title
she chose as a way to convey her
liking for recreating ordinary
objects
using
the
exotic
visualizations that she has for
them. Combining the techniques
of drawing, printmaking and
mixed media processes, Gotlib’s
recurring motifs in her
artwork center around
the subtle expressive
beauty
of
nature’s
life cycles. There is
something
powerful
about students having
the
opportunity
to
display their combined
passions of art and
the representation of
the environment, one
that becomes mystical
and enrapturing to their viewers
as a result. Undoubtedly, this is
what the curator of this gallery
had noticed in students and had
brought to life for that reason.
Sara Adlerstein-Gonzalez, the
curator of the Art & Environment
Gallery in the Dana Building, is a
renowned member of the research
faculty for the University’s School
for Environment and Sustainability.
With an extensive background
as a visual artist for both local
and international organizations,
she has been reaching towards
her objective to bridge the arts
and
environmental
sciences
and has been able to create the
beginning of an interdisciplinary
space here at this University with
this gallery. She relishes in the
idea of embracing different fields
through collaboration and sees
the gallery as an effective result of
that: “We are bringing art to our
school to strengthen our sense of
community and facilitate dialogue
among students, faculty and staff
in the spirit of green-building
philosophy.”
The gallery has been ongoing
since February 2012 and has
featured more than two dozen
exhibits since then, displaying
the artwork done by local and
national artists whose passion
for interdisciplinary projects has
become evident with this gallery.
The artists have expressed their
motives for contributing to this
gallery coincide with Adlerstein-
Gonzalez’s mission statement:
To
create
discussion.
These
students,
professionals
and
instructors want their artwork
to be seen to make the issues
they care about more apparent
in daily conversations. Many
of these artists care just as you
and I do, only they see that the
most effective change will occur
through their medium. If I were
them, I would say the same.
Currently,
I
believe
the
University
is
undermining
the talent and the resources
we have on campus to instill
the social change that our
generation is working hard
to
create.
After
viewing
the exhibit in the Art &
Environment Gallery, I could
feel the impression that the
display was having on me.
The professionalism combined
with the emotion and the
portrayal
of
the
natural
world not only made me think
further about the attributed
environmental
issues
but
also allowed me to form a
psychological attachment in
supporting it.
Even
though
I
deeply
admired its all-encompassing
aura, I felt within that it could
be
something
more.
After
experiencing this medium of
expression that had a lasting
effect on my thoughts and
my concerns, it felt natural to
demand that it be projected on
a larger scale than it currently
is. I feel that this showcase
deserves a larger platform,
and ultimately the University
hasn’t done enough to draw its
students towards this medium
of
expression
that
could
change their perspectives and
priorities. I believe that if this
University wants to achieve
true positive change in terms
of implementing a sustainable
lifestyle into the academic
body’s
infrastructure,
it
must begin with giving the
people a reason to want this
change and it must expose
the interdisciplinary themes
between all of the subjects it has
to offer to create a far-reaching
drive for collaboration.
Kianna Marquez can be reached at
kmarquez@umich.edu.
M
y first trip to the
shooting
range
was
a
formative
experience. Before
handling
firearms
on
my
own,
my
parents
required
I complete a basic
gun-safety
class,
which
culminated
in
a
round
of
target
shooting
with
single-shot,
small-caliber rifles
from the prone position. We
were guided by a certified
instructor from the National
Rifle
Association,
who
instilled in us a reverence for
the four fundamental rules of
gun safety: You must ensure
all guns are always loaded,
never let the muzzle cover
anything you are not willing
to destroy, keep your finger
on the trigger until your
sights are on the target and
identify your target and what
is behind it. Thanks to this
foundation, I consider myself
a responsible gun owner.
It is largely because of
this experience that I take
issue with how much of
the gun debate is currently
framed by American political
commentary, on both sides of
the aisle. The recent massacre
of Muslim worshippers in
New Zealand has once again
invited
careless
and
lazy
argumentation from Second
Amendment fundamentalists
and prominent progressives
alike. The former erroneously
characterize all gun control
policies,
even
reasonable
ones,
as
the
first
step
in
the
unconstitutional
disarmament of the American
citizenry.
Meanwhile,
the latter seem convinced
that
pushing
ineffectual
gun control policies after
every mass shooting is the
best
prescription
for
gun
violence. I’ve seen up-close
how responsible gun use is
instilled in a society, so I feel
confident in saying that these
outlooks are wrong.
As
demonstrated
by
recent commentary on the
New Zealand shooting, the
NRA
and
similar
Second
Amendment advocacy groups
relentlessly perpetuate the
myth that any gun control
measures
amount
to
an
“evisceration” of gun rights.
In fact, the text of the
Second Amendment grants
no immunity from reasonable
restrictions
on
the
sale,
possession or use of firearms
— just consult the majority
opinion of late Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the
seminal Second Amendment
Supreme
Court
case
of
District of Columbia v. Heller.
This extreme interpretation
matters.
While
Second
Amendment fundamentalists
do not comprise a majority
of gun owners, gun policy is
disproportionately swayed by
pro-gun positions. Compared
to gun control advocates, gun
rights
advocates
prioritize
gun policies much more when
they vote (which
explains
why
majority
support
for
gun
control
measures
do
not
translate to federal-
level
legislation).
Though at odds with
legal
consensus
and
the
needs
of a safe society,
uncompromising
interpretations
of
the Second Amendment have
nonetheless gained traction
among diligent voters.
Second Amendment groups
also advance the premise
that the act of one should not
lead to the rights of many
being taken away. That this
sophistry is often parroted
by other pro-gun activists
does not make it any less
false. Restrictions of rights
and privileges are always
justified by the furthering of
some public interest, even if
those affected did nothing to
warrant such a policy. I do not
protest if I am subjected to an
invasive search at the airport,
even though I had nothing to
do with the men responsible
for 9/11. If smart gun control
legislation
actually
helps
reduce violence, the public
safety
of
all
citizens
—
gun owners included — is
enhanced.
Another way these groups
tend to distract from the real
concern of formulating policy
is by repetitively emphasizing
largely
irrelevant
aspects
of gun violence. The most
prominent example is mental
illness. Despite little to no
supporting evidence, a high
proportion
of
Republicans
(and even a near-majority of
Democrats) believe mental
illness to be a key factor in
gun
violence.
Attributing
inadequate
gun
policy
to
health issues of individual
perpetrators
does
little
to
address
gun
violence
systematically,
yet
Second
Amendment fundamentalists
repeatedly do so.
None of this excuses liberals
from their own myopia and
folly when it comes to guns,
however. Progressives who
wish to tackle the problem
of
gun
violence
head-on
have increasingly committed
to over-enthusiasm at the
expense
of
level-headed
scrutiny.
For
one,
nearly
all
of
the
leading
Democratic
candidates for the pivotal
2020
presidential
election
have
demonstrated
their
support of an assault weapons
ban. It’s a policy that any
good
Second
Amendment
supporter
knows
to
be
extremely complicated in its
effects in improving public
safety, but well-proven at
tanking electoral odds. Such
a ban was previously signed
into law by President Bill
Clinton for 10 years starting
in 1994. Later that year,
Republicans
rode
a
wave
of
popular
dissatisfaction
to take the U.S. House for
the first time in decades.
The
subsequent
era
of
conservative
congressional
dominance saw the Dickey
amendment
passed,
which
dealt
a
huge
setback
to
gun control by effectively
freezing federal funding on
gun control policy. Liberals
are
sadly
repeating
the
mistake of gambling away
valuable political capital for
ineffective policies.
What they should instead
be focused on are universal
background checks. Unlike
an
assault
weapons
ban,
universal background checks
enjoy
majority
support
among American gun owners
and would incur less political
wrath.
Most
importantly,
they would be but one step
toward a more responsible
distribution
of
guns
in
America. For even though
no evidence suggests that
universal background checks
work on their own, they
would make more proven
gun control measures easier
to pass into law — namely,
permit-to-purchase laws.
Not only do such laws entail
additional measures beyond
background checks, they are
also proven to significantly
lower gun violence. Evidence
is on the side of laws that
regulate
gun
ownership,
therefore
encouraging
responsibility. In a country
awash with many more guns
than qualified gun owners,
laws like these are much-
needed.
Looking
at
the
sheer
number of gun homicides,
gun suicides and accidental
gun deaths in America, one
can start to feel hopeless.
But,
somewhere
between
the Dickey amendments and
assault weapons bans, hope
appears.
Those
additional
measures
and
permit-to-
purchase
laws
contribute
to the responsible gun use
I first encountered at my
gun-safety class. And they
are possible. What stands in
the way are those who steer
the conversation from policy
to paranoia, and those who
mistakenly
lump
together
good gun control policies
with bad ones. We just need
to get better at tuning them
out.
Bad ideas and bad policies
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Ethan Kessler
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
ETHAN KESSLER | COLUMN
I
’m consumed with an
anger that I had been
lucky to never have felt
before this past summer.
I’m angry at my friend who
went home, not questioning
my slurred “I’m OK” as I
stumbled
over and my other friend
who disappeared with her
boyfriend,
never
saying
goodbye.
I’m
angry
that
I
kept
drinking and that I can’t
remember how I ended up in
the basement with
him.
I’m angry that I didn’t say
no.
I’m angry the reason I
didn’t say no was because
someone had not listened to
my repeated no’s
the year before.
I’m
angry
that
I
felt
like I couldn’t move, that
I kept going in and out of
consciousness.
I’m angry that he said
“that was bad” when he was
finished.
I’m angry that he dressed
me, sat me up, then left me in
the basement without turning
back.
I’m angry that no one
was around or answered my
calls when I finally made it
upstairs.
I’m angry that he passed
me sitting on the stairs to get
food with a friend as I waited
for a car.
I’m angry that I threw up
six times that night.
I’m angry that I could
barely sit the next day.
I’m angry that I felt numb
for two weeks after and I now
cry myself to sleep almost
every night.
I’m angry that my friends
don’t acknowledge what has
happened to me, that they
don’t check in
to see if I’m alright.
I’m angry that I feel like
I’m being selfish, feeling that
sharing my experience would
be a burden on those who
listen.
I’m angry that I’ve never
felt more alone.
I’m angry that he invaded
my thoughts every day this
summer, even being across the
globe.
I’m
angry
that
I
had
to change where I would
normally socialize at school
and that I still see him
in areas of campus where I
once felt safe.
I’m angry that I still can’t
fully express my pain in
words.
I’m angry that I have to
distance myself from media
surrounding sexual assault
and that my
volunteer
position
in
SAPAC is now too much to
handle most of the time.
I’m angry that I have to
accept this as a part of my
past.
I’m angry that only time
can heal this wound.
I’m happy that I love and
feel in control of my body once
again.
I’m happy that this anger is
no longer constant and that I
can handle it better when it
reappears.
I’m
happy
that
I
have
proved to myself that I am
stronger than I ever thought I
would have to be.
I’m happy that I have come
to terms with this being a part
of who I am.
And most of all, I am proud
that I do not let it define me.
As time passes
ALEXANDRA L. | SURVIVORS SPEAK
KIANNA
MARQUEZ
We are bringing
art to our school to
strengthen our sense
of community
This is the piece in the Survivors
Speak series, which seeks to share
the varied, first-person experiences
of survivors of sexual assault. If
you are a survivor and would like to
submit to the series, please email
tothedaily@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.
ETHAN
KESSLER
If smart gun control
legislation actually
helps reduce voilence,
the public safety of all
citizens is enhanced
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.