Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White 

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

ALICE LIN | COLUMN

A new perspective on back to school shopping
W

hat starts out as 
a 
typical 
back-to-
school ad becomes 
increasingly more and more 
disturbing as students in the 
background 
of 
each 
scene 
begin running away from some 
ominous threat. Each child who 
makes an appearance holds 
some sort of mundane object — 
a skateboard, colored pencils, 
socks — that is then utilized in a 
manner of self-defense. 
The dark shadow creeping on 
the heels of these kids is also one 
that is making its way across the 
country — polarizing politicians 
and constituents alike. This 
public service announcement 
recently published by the Sandy 
Hook Promise, a nonprofit aimed 
at 
preventing 
gun 
violence, 
prompts us to remember that we 
cannot neglect the issue of gun 
violence. The video conveys that 
shootings have become almost 
commonplace, to the extent 
where we should be aware 
and afraid they could happen 
anytime and anywhere. Though 
this may seem extreme, we have 
to accustom ourselves to the 
idea that it can become a reality 
for all of us. The message here is 
also a necessary call to action, 
because there really is no valid 
excuse as to why there has been 
no progress made on containing 
this threat. If we really want to 
see change occur, it is an effort 
that needs to be made on every 
level — from local to federal — 
and so far, we are failing to do 
so.
Gun violence has become an 
issue that is only growing more 
prominent, 
especially 
with 
the two attacks that happened 
within 24 hours of each other in 
August. Yet, the United States 
government has failed to make 
progress toward alleviating the 
problem, which is completely 
unacceptable. So far, one of the 
few politicians who has been 
vocal and transparent in their 

intentions to handle the issue 
is presidential candidate Beto 
O’Rourke. At the last Democratic 
debate, he shared his plans to 
take away AR-15s and AK-47s, 
which drew controversy. His 
plan has been seen as extreme, 
since he outright stated his 
intentions to limit the Second 
Amendment. At the same time, 
members of his own party 
are concerned that his words 
will hinder the progress of 
the gun control bill that has 
been proposed by Democrats. 
Congress has yet to pass the bill 
for background checks, which 
is currently still waiting on 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch 
McConnell for action. So far, 
there have been no Republican 
supporters of the bill, because 
they refuse to take action until 
they are sure President Donald 
Trump will support it.
This is not how Congress 
should work. The Republican 
excuse is just a cop out: If they 
actually cared about taking 
action, 
Trump’s 
potential 
response would not matter. 
Background checks are far less 
“extreme” in the sense that 
they do not completely prevent 
people from exercising their 
right to bear arms. Even if 
Trump threatens to veto the 
bill, Congress can always vote to 
override it — it is just a matter of 
whether or not they really care 
enough about it. At this point, 
gun 
violence 
has 
extended 
beyond the debate of exercising 
rights and become an issue of 
public health. Considering it 
has crossed into the domain of 
public health and safety, there 
is even less reason to not take 
action. The government has 
police powers — the ability to act 
in the interest of preserving the 
health and safety of the people — 
and it should exercise them. 
Being a politician is not about 
achieving what is easy, it is about 
achieving the greater good for 

your constituents — and the 
constituents want gun control. 
In a recently conducted Marist 
poll, 55 percent of adults 
agreed gun control was more 
important than their Second 
Amendment rights. Politicians 
are blatantly ignoring what 
the people actually want, but 
at what cost? Is campaign 
funding and support from the 
NRA really worth endangering 
the lives of so many Americans? 
When did politics become 
about staying in power for the 
sake of a career rather than 
helping the people? 
At the same time, Democrats 
should stand up and take a 
stronger stance. This is not an 
issue that can be compromised 
on. I know bipartisanship is 
necessary to get things done, 
but talks between the two 
parties 
will 
only 
continue 
to go in circles. If a bill on 
background checks — which 
is already such a simple form 
of gun regulation — cannot 
even get passed, what hope 
do we really have of achieving 
anything? If the government is 
at an impasse on the issue and 
there is no federal progress, 
then we need to seek out change 
through another method. Why 
give all of these politicians 
the privilege to affect change 
when they have done nothing 
with their power to help others? 
With 23 Republican Senate 
seats up for reelection in 2020, 
we can now be vocal in effecting 
change. If politicians seem like 
they are losing sight of what 
is important, we can easily 
remind them of what matters. 
The statistics show that a large 
percentage of us care strongly 
about regulation, we just need 
to make our voices heard. There 
is a saying that all politics is 
local. It all starts with us voters.

Alice Lin can be reached at 

alicelin@umich.edu

Trump’s trade war against China: the right thing to do

EVAN STERN | COLUMN

CHERYN HONG | COLUMN

All political opinions deserve a voice
A

s 
a 
first-generation 
immigrant, 
my 
family was never my 
source of political 
information. When 
my 
parents 
were 
finally allowed to 
vote, 
they 
simply 
taught 
me 
one 
thing: Always vote 
Democratic. I never 
questioned 
their 
advice, as I believe 
most teenagers do 
when 
they 
start 
learning 
about 
politics.
I 
blindly 
followed 
my 
parents’ beliefs up until high 
school. I lived in one of the 
wealthiest cities in Michigan 
and attended a prestigious 
private 
institution. 
My 
environment 
drastically 
changed, and I was surrounded 
by people from contrasting 
socioeconomic 
backgrounds, 
and — most strikingly — 
conservative political stances. 
At 
first 
glance, 
people 
may assume I struggled in 
a community of peers who 
come 
from 
conservative 
backgrounds and perspectives 
strikingly 
different 
from 
mine. 
However, 
to 
my 
surprise, I strongly gravitated 
towards people who thought 
differently than me. While 
I didn’t seek out people on 
the right side of the political 
spectrum, the students I got 
along with and enjoyed the 
company of happened to have 
views that strongly opposed 
my own. 
My first two weeks as a 
freshman at the University 
have been an overflow of 
information, 
from 
figuring 
out where to find lecture 
halls to how one can “Stay 
in the Blue.” But perhaps the 
biggest change I’ve noticed 
from my high school is how 
the University of Michigan 
community is fairly liberal, 
based on my experience of 
hallway talk and classroom 
discourse. 
In my first-year seminar, the 
Anthropology of Resentment, 
my professor assigned a New 
York Times column for us 
to observe how colleges are 
being criticized for being too 
liberal. Author Molly Worthen 
questioned how and if colleges 

are truly intellectually diverse. 
She refered to conservative 
watchdog groups who warned 
students of socialist 
professors 
and 
their 
prohibition 
of 
conservative 
expression. 
While 
these 
were 
hyperbolic 
claims, 
she strove to seek the 
source of the claims. 
Worthen 
proceeded to study 
whether professors 
successfully 
create intellectually diverse 
communities. My assignment 
led me to propose my own 
questions: Is the University 
creating an open environment 
for 
not 
only 
conservative 
views, but for all beliefs of 
the incoming freshmen and 
the entire student body? This 
poses another question: How 
does the University condemn 
hate and encourage an open 
space for all opinions at the 
same time? 

Having been surrounded 
by peers with beliefs that 
contradict my own throughout 
my 
secondary 
educational 
experience, I understand the 
value of being challenged, 
whether the topic is politics 
or any other issue. By the time 
of my high school graduation, 
I realized my closest friends 
came from the opposite side 
of the political spectrum. 
My personal growth in high 
school was thanks in part to 
my peers. However, while 
I got the most out of my 
high 
school 
experience, 
I 
understand that a high school 
community can be much more 
welcoming 
than 
a 
larger 
university. I wonder if certain 
conservative 
students 
who 
have different views from the 
majority liberal community 

feel at risk for being rejected 
or alienated. 
While 
it 
is 
refreshing 
and comforting to know 
that there are many people 
who share my beliefs, it is 
disheartening to know the 
atmosphere could also be 
hindering 
other 
students 
from speaking up. With the 
current 
political 
climate, 
it is more important than 
ever 
for 
individuals 
to 
understand 
perspectives 
other than their own. Like 
other students, I came to the 
University to be challenged. 
If we continue to create an 
atmosphere that reflects the 
same perspective and ideals, 
there 
is 
no 
opportunity 
for 
personal 
growth. 
A 
homogenous mindset stunts 
progression, and it would be 
a shame to waste a campus 
that is composed of minds 
that think differently and has 
students who are passionate 
about what they stand for. 
Even though I am an 
advocate for open spaces and 
allowing people to converse 
freely, it is imperative to 
note the need to prevent hate 
speech on campus. With the 
2020 presidential election 
coming up, it is easy for 
students to allow the tension, 
both inside and outside of 
political parties, to dissolve 
respect 
and 
courtesy 
for 
one another. Students have 
a key responsibility to know 
the 
difference 
between 
an intellectual debate and 
unnecessary 
conflict. 
The 
complexity of creating an 
open community shouldn’t 
deter us from attempting 
to balance an intellectually 
diverse conversation without 
malicious input. 
Rarely in our educational 
careers are we given a space 
where we can openly discuss 
contradicting 
opinions 
in 
a 
respectful 
manner, 
especially given the political 
climate. That said, I think 
everyone at the University 
should strive toward creating 
an 
environment 
where 
all opinions are welcome, 
especially the students. 

Cheryn Hong can be reached at 

cherynh@umich.edu.

A

fter 
tweeting 
“... 
trade wars are good, 
and 
easy 
to 
win” 
about a year and a half ago 
in reference to our nation’s 
growing 
trade 
tensions 
with China at that point, 
President 
Donald 
Trump 
was right about one thing. 
This trade war is clearly not 
as easy to “win” as he first 
claimed in March 2018, but, 
it is without a doubt the right 
course of action to take for all 
Americans. 
While 
Trump’s 
actions, 
which 
include 
imposing 
tariffs on billions of dollars 
worth of goods manufactured 
in China, may appear to many 
as provocative and dangerous, 
they 
are 
actually 
greatly 
warranted, as is evident from 
the bipartisan support his 
measures have received. For 
decades, China has engaged 
in significantly unfair trade 
practices against the United 
States, with our government 
doing little about it. 
As 
the 
current 
administration has correctly 
stated, China, the world’s 
largest 
exporter, 
has 
routinely 
been 
found 
to 
illegally and aggressively sell 
its products, manipulate its 
currency and steal America’s 
intellectual property, which 
are all part of a calculated 
effort to unethically elevate 
its economy above that of 
the U.S. As a result, everyday 
Americans playing by the 
rules have found themselves 
confined 
and 
limited 
by 
China’s 
previously-
unchallenged actions. 
In a 2018 White House fact sheet, 
it was reported that China has 
endangered millions of American 
jobs 
through 
a 
number 
of unfair tactics, including 
forced technology transfer, 
“outright cyber theft” and 
the imposition of tariffs on 
American 
goods 
that, 
on 
average, are triple (although 
sometimes 10 times greater) 
what the United States has 
imposed on Chinese goods. 
Furthermore, China has been 
found to regularly promote 
the dumping of its goods, 
conditions of over-capacity 
and the usage of industrial 

subsidies 
that 
“make 
it 
impossible for many United 
States firms to compete on a 
level playing field,” according 
to the fact sheet. Moreover, 
China accounts for 87 percent 
of 
the 
counterfeit 
goods 
that are confiscated upon 
reaching our borders. Finally, 
a number of plans the nation 
has developed — including the 
Made in China 2025 initiative 
— pose a direct economic 
threat to our nation and other 
law-abiding countries. 
Consider, as is detailed 
in a recent CNBC article, 
ordinary 
citizens 
trying 

to make a living as China 
moves to exploit them. With 
several different companies 
mentioned, 
it 
becomes 
strikingly clear that, despite 
the harm stemming from 
tariffs, Trump is answering 
a long call from many to 
attempt to put China in 
its place. “(I)t’s not a free 
market,” 
Neil 
Muyskens, 
CEO 
of 
the 
suffering 
Unicomp company, a small 
business that manufactures 
keyboards in Kentucky, said, 
“We are at a significant cost 
disadvantage 
and 
always 
have been.”
Many in this nation who 
are 
concerned 
about 
the 
impact of this trade war 
point 
to 
the 
decline 
of 
the stock market and the 
hardships felt by American 
consumers and businesses as 
evidence that our president 
is 
inadvertently 
harming 
this nation and throwing 
the 
worldwide 
economic 
landscape off balance. But 
while there are risks and 

rewards with any decision, 
the 
truth 
is 
confronting 
Beijing benefits the United 
States. 
Already, since the White 
House first began tackling 
China’s 
unfair 
trade 
advantage, 
we 
have 
seen 
progress. While the road to a 
deal has been bumpy at times, 
with work still necessary, 
Trump 
and 
Chinese 
President Xi Jinping have 
held negotiations in order to 
arrive at a solution that both 
sides can agree to. Most of 
all, by taking a stand against 
Beijing’s harmful practices, 
China is less likely to engage 
in these types of aggressive 
habits in the future as long 
as we keep applying this 
level of pressure on their 
government. 
Undoubtedly, Trump has 
encountered 
roadblocks. 
It is clear that such a great 
economic power like China, 
especially 
considering 
its behavior in the past, 
presents a unique challenge 
for the president and the 
U.S. And while many have 
been pessimistic about these 
efforts, 
our 
government 
doesn’t 
have 
much 
of 
an 
alternative 
choice. 
Ultimately, 
the 
United 
States can either continue 
to persevere as one of the 
world’s leading powers and 
triumph over these unethical 
conditions, or we can blink 
and allow China to further 
wreak havoc on our economy. 
As one considers the state 
of the current situation, it is 
fully clear that we have no 
choice but to continue this 
lengthy confrontation and 
eventually earn the respect 
we deserve from, not only 
China, but also from all other 
nations that trade unfairly 
with the United States. In the 
end, we will thank President 
Trump for ending years of 
direct, blatant assault on 
our economy and elevating 
the needs of hard-working 
Americans above all else.

Evan Stern can be reached at 

erstern@umich.edu.

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.

Confronting 
Beijing 
benefits the 
United States

JOIN EDITBOARD

Join The Michigan Daily! Come to 
Editboard meetings Monday and 
Wednesday from 7:15 to 8:45 at the 
Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Engage in 
discourse about important issues and 
become a journalist!

CHERYN 
HONG 

A homogenous 
mindset stunts 
progression

