Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, September 27, 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
RILEY DEHR | COLUMN
Legalize mushrooms... and everything else
Reconciling feminism and multiculturalism
DIVYA GUMUDAVELLY | COLUMN
DESI DIKOVA | OP-ED
D
enver is famous for its
drug culture. Whether
it
be
the
marijuana
dispensaries lining almost every
street or the microbreweries
littering the city’s burgeoning
“hip” (gentrified) neighborhoods,
it’s certain that the Mile High
City knows how to have a good
time. This became obvious to me
the summer before last after my
mom and I moved there from
Nebraska.
On our way to see a band named
BoomBox, my mom, my friend
Nadezhda and I stood together
outside of the Ogden Theatre, a
famous concert venue off of the
infamous Colfax Avenue. The
sun had just set, bringing this
particularly
raunchy
section
of Colfax to life. Various shady
characters
stumbled
up
and
down the street, past groups of
raucous,
bar-hopping
tourists
staying at the Ramada down the
street. Two political canvassers
surfed the sea of buzzed, soon-to-
be concert-goers.
One
person
signed
their
petition, followed by another
and then another. What political
issue was so urgent to inspire this
gaggle of inebriated adults?
One of the canvassers yelled
out the answer.
“Legalize mushrooms!”
“Yeah, right,” my friend and
I snickered before walking into
the concert hall and forgetting
about the comedic situation.
That was my first experience
with
Denver’s
burgeoning
“mushroom movement.” Until
this May, that is, when Denver
citizens
narrowly
passed
a
measure
decriminalizing
the
use of hallucinogenic “magic”
mushrooms. This significantly
deprioritized
the
police’s
enforcement of laws prohibiting
their use. This shouldn’t have
surprised me, given the almost
constant smell of weed that
hovers over the state of Colorado,
where
a
thriving
Deadhead
culture has promoted the use of
psychedelic drugs for over half a
century — but it did.
Being the child of a drug-
addict father and an ex-hippie
mom, my experiences with drugs
varied greatly depending on
which parent was doing them.
One of my earliest memories
is my parents fighting in the
driveway after my father decided
to pawn our VHS player (along
with
almost
everything
else
not nailed down) to sustain his
lifelong drug addiction. The sour
memories of ruined Christmases,
crashed cars and a frequently
disappearing dad didn’t sour my
view towards drug use, though,
with my mother and her band of
hippie musician friends teaching
me the importance of moderation
and safe experimentation.
During my childhood, it wasn’t
uncommon to see my mom and
her friends crowd into our small
kitchen for midnight “jam-out”
sessions, no doubt with a few
joints floating about the room, as
the other kids and I played hide-
and-go-seek in the basement. As
I grew up, I heard many of these
friends describe their spiritual
experiences
with
mushrooms
and heard funny stories involving
various other “hippie” drugs.
My parents met in Leadville,
Colo., — literally the highest
incorporated
city
in
the
continental
U.S.
—
during
the peak of its hippie/grunge
phase. My first piece of clothing
was a tie-dye onesie, so I was
born into the hippie life. But
decriminalizing shrooms?! It just
felt odd to me, letting people trip
out on hallucinogenic fungi with
the government’s tacit approval.
What got me out of this very
un-Coloradan attitude were the
same people I had scoffed at with
my friend outside the Ogden.
Kevin Matthews, the man who
organized
the
Decriminalize
Denver campaign, said of their
victory, “A lot of people who
signed our petition said they are
tired to see (sic) people going to
jail over what they choose to put
in their body.” I couldn’t argue
with his rationale. It’s the same
argument used by pro-choice
and assisted-suicide advocates:
The government shouldn’t have
a say in what one does with their
own body. It’s a radical idea in
the U.S.,that an organization
corrupted by centuries of greed
and ignorance shouldn’t be able
to imprison someone for eating
a mushroom. In Portugal and
Uruguay, however, this is the
reality.
These
countries,
for
reasons ranging from cultural
preservation to trying to stifle
the deadly and failing drug wars
that ravaged their countries,
have decriminalized all drugs
for personal use. Not only has it
made these nations much cooler
Spring Break spots, but it has also
made most of them significantly
safer, more economical and
more humane. With our nation’s
current prison occupancy at
103.9 percent due to the epic
failure of the war on drugs, it’s
foolish to not entertain the idea
of decriminalization. After all, it
saved Portugal from a similarly
unwinnable,
American-style
war on drugs that overloaded
prisons, stigmatized seeking
treatment and exacerbated the
problem.
In
2001,
after
decades
of
failure,
the
Portuguese
government
desperately
pulled a 180-degree turn and
decriminalized
all
drugs
for personal use, halting the
costly and draconian policy of
criminalizing drug users, and
instead invested money toward
taking care of the addicted.
Eighteen years later, all of the
nation’s drug-related issues have
been greatly alleviated.
This isn’t a guarantee the
same would work here — nations
are as unpredictable as the
people that live in them — but
other countries like Bolivia
have followed suit, effectively
fighting
their
nations’
drug
problems through the humanity
of decriminalization rather than
the violence of criminalization.
Mexico’s president even released
a plan this May to follow
Portugal’s lead and says he hopes
the U.S. will eventually do the
same.
Michigan and other states
have already embraced this idea,
albeit on a smaller scale, with the
legalization of marijuana. With
the federal government seemingly
hell-bent on maintaining its
failing strategy, the process of
drug decriminalization would
most likely follow weed’s lead,
becoming a state issue before a
federal one.
While I am almost certain
that Denver’s decriminalization
of mushrooms was more about
tripping out than avenging the
people caught using them, they
seem to have discovered the
coveted and elusive solution
to a problem that has ravaged
our nation, and my family, for
generations.
Decriminalization is by no
means an endorsement of drugs.
Rather, it’s an endorsement of
allowing our government to
treat its citizens, especially those
who cannot stop using illegal
substances
without
suffering
through the terrible symptoms
of withdrawal, with compassion
rather than austerity.
Riley Dehr can be reached at
rdehr@umich.edu.
T
he origins of Western
feminist thought in the
early 1900s were rooted
in
political
and
sociological
theories of gender differences,
a certain angst that came with
the
patriarchal
institutions
that dictated day-to-day lives.
The movement that emerged
from
this
struggle
became
intent on altering the prominent
perspectives on where women
stand in Western society. While
the
movement
maintains
its
objective to advocate for equality
on the grounds of gender identity,
its members are often ignorant
of the other intersections that
characterize
an
individual,
namely culture and ethnicity.
In
the
era
of
Western
feminist imperialism, we must
critically examine our discourse
and actions and how they’ve
created a new conflict between
multiculturalism and feminism.
Surely both can coexist. But
do they? Historically, Western
colonialism has systematically
subdued
people
of
color
through
action
and
intent.
Currently, Western ideologies
are
establishing
the
notion
of
gendered
orientalism,
a
misrepresentation
of
“other
women” and their rights through
incomplete
dialogues
and
stereotyped viewpoints on a
global, national and local scale.
The central tenets of Western
feminism typically, though not
always, revolve around shared
and accepted beliefs: a world
without misogynistic violence,
where pay parity is the norm
and women have the freedom of
choice. The context in which these
are explored, however, needs
to be one of cultural humility,
which means understanding how
certain cultural ideas compare
and contrast with what people
consider “expertise.”
As
evolved
from
colonial
thought, there is a ubiquitous,
unacknowledged
notion
that
Western philosophies present
other cultures through a pitied,
stereotypical
viewpoint
—
which is also evidenced in the
global feminist movement. For
instance, the 2015 documentary
“India’s Daughter,” directed by
British filmmaker Leslee Udwin,
offers a detailed and sobering
account of the 2012 gang rape
and murder incident of a young
woman in India. While shedding
light onto the cultural divide that
galvanized a new movement in
an image-conscious country, the
film’s portrayal of the victim, Jyoti
Singh, as a daughter propagates
a rather dangerous notion as to
who Indian women are and when
their rights are worth fighting
for. The film’s Western gaze
constructs a narrow, almost two-
dimensional image of who Indian
women are. Jyoti is reduced to a
cultural stereotype — a virtuous,
pure and hard-working student
who needed protection.
The film casts her as an abstract
symbol exploited by those who
knew and wronged her. Hence,
she is reduced to these people’s
thoughts of her, which is further
muddled by the direction of a
Western filmmaker. Her memory
and existence in the history of
the world are completely defined
by one aspect of her identity —
an Indian daughter — and her
gruesome fate is misrepresented
as a consequence of a culture that
subjugates women. While these
cultural tropes are not necessarily
untrue, it is important to note that
the crime was heinous because it
was committed, not because it
was committed against a pious
Indian woman.
Apart from globally reducing
culturally-charged,
feminist
narratives to mere stereotypes,
on a national level, Western
feminism is ruptured in that
advocacy is rooted in fulfilling
Caucasian agendas that do not
necessarily apply to minority
populations. As Chandra Mohanty
writes in her essay “Under the
Western Eyes,” white feminism
often
overshadows
without
encompassing the complexities of
colored experiences. A common
topic of discussion, especially in
today’s sociopolitical climate, is
the income inequality that exists
between men and women. The
narrative that women make 82
cents for every dollar that a man
makes is incomplete and ignorant
of broader systemic problems. Yet
the full, racialized picture rarely
receives as much attention as the
fragmented one does.
The startlingly large wage
gap in the U.S. between women
of color and white women is
a discussion that is limited
to political debate but little
ground level recognition and
action. The onset of new age
feminism, dubbed the Fourth
Wave of Feminism, carries the
successes of the legacies created
before it — voter equality,
governmental
representation,
etc. — but compounds on the
faults of the eras before it as
well. It lacks intersectionality.
Just like how women of color
received the right to vote much
later than white women, the
war for equal pay seems to be
serving only a portion of the
population. The majority of
the advocacy surrounding this
issue is changing perceptions
to lead to systemic changes.
The perception becomes that
women choose jobs that pay
less, thus women deserve less
pay when they choose to have
children, hence women are not
as professionally capable as men.
Perceptions,
however,
are
multilayered. The schema for
a Black or brown woman is
very different from the schema
for a white woman, and so
there must be room in the
feminist movement for women
of all intersecting identities to
speak for and represent their
experiences.
The
Western
feminist framework must expand
to value minority experiences as
much as it values white ones and
must find place in the collective
consciousness of society and not
just in political debates.
On a local level, feminist
discourse
must
translate
to
actions — ones that are inclusive,
intersectional and champions
of
multiculturalism.
Protests
like
the
national
Women’s
March or even campus-wide
ones
must
emphasize
the
experiences of both minority
and white women, so that these
experiences are woven into an
overarching narrative rooted in
multiculturalism. All women,
regardless of whether they fit
stereotypical Western images,
deviate
from
Westernized
agendas or otherwise, deserve
representation and equal rights.
Divya Gumudavelly can be
reached at gumudadi@umich.edu.
Considerations on clean energy
T
he apparent abundance
and efficiency of fossil
fuels revolutionized our
energy systems. Research had yet
to confirm environmental, health
and economic risks, and even when
it had, communication was poor.
This lack of foresight has led us to
the current, established system that
resists change despite confirmed
harm — sacrificial zones, energy
poverty, ecological catastrophe,
global warming and climate crisis.
Fossil fuels catalyzed the Second
Industrial
Revolution
at
the
expense of countless communities
and regions around the world.
Unsurprisingly,
it
was
the
threat of scarcity rather than
environmental and ethical issues
that started pushing us away
from fossil fuels. Research into
alternative
energy
accelerated,
with solar as one of the most
attractive
candidates
due
to
abundant solar irradiance, though
this can be limited as there are only
so many hours in a day. Moreover,
the process of fabricating a solar
cell is incredibly material and
energy intensive, and there are
limited resources on Earth. What
do we do once we’ve extracted it
all? What do we do when we’re
left with nonfunctional solar cells?
Experts predict that we would
generate 78 million metric tons of
photovoltaic waste by 2050 under
our current system. It is critical
that we consider the full lifetime of
a solar cell — from the harvesting
of raw materials to methods of
waste management. There are
limited
natural
resources
on
Earth. Confronting this unsettling
reality demands the development
of more efficient and widely
applicable methods to repurpose,
remanufacture
and
recycle
materials necessary to renewable
energy sources. Namely, a circular
economy of energy.
The circular economy model
first became popular in the 1970s
and has since been championed by
the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
a UK-based charity that promotes
and
funds
circular
economy
advancements.
The
current
global economy runs in a linear
fashion: production, use, waste. A
linear economy depletes Earth’s
raw
resources
and
generates
massive waste, a model that is no
longer sustainable. In contrast, a
circular economy keeps all raw
materials within the economy
through
repair,
refurbishment,
remanufacture
and
recycling.
Consider a cell phone in a circular
economy: Repair would constitute
customer care such as replacing
the battery; refurbishment would
require
the
manufacturer
to
replace parts like the screen or
camera;
remanufacture
would
take the phone apart to install
new hardware; recycling would
take the phone apart completely
to extract individual materials,
such as precious metals, wiring
and plastics. Our current economy
does not significantly include
any of these pathways except
recycling.
But
taking
apart
products completely is wasteful,
needless and energy intensive.
Furthermore, recycling in the U.S.
is declining since exporting waste
is no longer an option and no cost-
effective
domestic
alternatives
exist. Radical action is needed to
establish a true circular economy.
It’s the only way to sustainably
minimize waste.
These same principles must
be applied to energy systems.
Currently,
silicon
solar
cells
dominate 90 percent of the solar
cell industry. Yet, while silicon is
the second most abundant element
on Earth, it remains a limited
and problematic candidate for
solar cell materials. Modern solar
cell advancements rely on new
materials with better electronic
properties but potentially more
hazardous materials. Perovskite
solar cells, for example, have
skyrocketed in efficiencies but
often contain lead and other
potentially hazardous materials.
These
hazardous
materials
demand
multiple
extractions,
refinement
and
a
lengthy
period of transportation. These
processes
elevate
the
initial
carbon footprint of producing
solar cells. Furthermore, relying
on trace materials has the
potential to make us vulnerable
to scarcity. Regardless of what
material is used for our solar
cells, circular economy principles
will be key to designing a system
that lasts.
Fossil fuels are an empire
built on unethical, unsustainable
practices that become impossible
to correct as the empire grows.
Thus, it is critical to investigate
sourcing and waste management
before committing to a new
system.
Our
desperation
to
escape
disastrous
climate
change by ditching fossil fuels
has the potential to make us
reckless
and
vulnerable.
We
must
hold
our
industries,
scientists,
policymakers
and
energy companies accountable
for
answering
the
following
questions: How are we mitigating
exploitation,
emissions
and
waste? Where will the energy
be produced and maintained?
How will it affect and support all
communities? These are not trivial
questions we can ignore while
consuming seemingly limitless,
cheap, consequence-free energy.
Solar
irradiance
may
be
infinite, but the raw materials
needed to capture it are not. We
cannot continue down a linear
economy model, consuming raw
materials and producing solar
cell waste. There is no future
in a linear economy. We must
confront resource scarcity and
waste generation by demanding a
circular economy. Solar cells could
make up a sustainable energy
system, but they could also become
the next fossil fuel disaster. No
energy system under a linear
economy can succeed.
Desi Dikova is a senior studying chemistry
and minoring in energy science and policy.
It’s foolish to
not entertain
the idea of
decriminalization
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.
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/survivespeak.