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.

