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.