Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 16, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
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

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.

ALICE LIN | COLUMN

Don’t use my race to further your agenda
W

hen I first heard
about the lawsuit
against
Harvard
University’s
admissions
process
for
discriminating
against
Asian-American
applicants, I was a high
school
senior
applying
to
college.
I
was
beginning
to
understand
the
debate
regarding affirmative action
and how it could potentially
impact my own admissions
results. From a discussion
about this in my government
class, my understanding was
that affirmative action was
created to ensure equality of
opportunity for students who
come from underprivileged
backgrounds.
The
whole
point is that instead of setting
quotas — which is illegal
— colleges are still able to
use race as a factor when
considering applications.
The lawsuit claims that
Harvard’s affirmative action
works negatively for Asian-
Americans by focusing their
efforts to be more inclusive
towards non-Asian-American
minorities. It was recently
decided that Harvard did
not
discriminate
in
its
consideration of applications
from Asian-Americans, which
raises concerns about where
affirmative action is going to
end up if the case is appealed
to the Supreme Court. Since
the court currently has a
conservative
majority,
the
case
might
result
in
the
termination
of
the
entire
practice, which would be a
setback towards equality for
underprivileged students. On
the surface, it may seem like a
win for Asian-Americans if the
initial verdict is overruled, but
at a closer look, the students
who are suing are really
being used as pawns to help
dismantle an entire system
that was created to give those
who are more underprivileged
a chance.
The
problem
with
the
Harvard lawsuit is the person
who is heading the protest
against
the
admissions
process is a white man. If
the case does end up at the
Supreme Court, it would not
benefit
Asian-Americans
and
other
minorities,
but
rather white students. The
purpose of affirmative action
is to help support minority
groups
obtain
the
same
opportunities
that
white
students have, due to the
disparity
in
socioeconomic
privilege. If we dismantle
this practice, this would not
only perpetuate the system of
white privilege but also make
it immensely harder for non-

white students to advance in
society. Furthermore, it would
be much easier for colleges
to be able to discriminate
when considering applicants,
which would limit diversity
at
these
institutions
of
higher education. It is also
just outright insensitive and
close-minded if we do not
acknowledge how privilege
and race have a role in
influencing
the
ability
of
students to perform. I’m also
not sure if a white man is
the best representative for
Asian-American voices when
it comes to such a racially
charged issue; it feels like
this case is being exploited
so an outcome that would
benefit
more
privileged
students at the expense of
more disadvantaged groups
can be reached. Regardless of
the intention here, this is an
issue that affects minorities
the most and should not be
forgotten.

Affirmative
action
has
become
a
complicated
subject, since past court cases
against it argue that it holds
students of color to less harsh
academic
standards.
The
precedent set by these cases
argues that white students
are
hurt
by
affirmative
action because it appears as if
minority students do not need
to work as hard or that the
spots of white students are
given away to create artificial
diversity. At the same time,
Asian-Americans
are
hurt
by affirmative action despite
being a minority, because
they tend to perform well
academically. There are a
lot of problems with the way
that race is considered in the
pursuit of “creating” diversity
and
Asian-Americans
are
constantly overlooked. They
are constantly seen as a
model
minority,
meaning
that
despite
all
of
the
disadvantages
that
come
with not being white, they
are still able to overcome
discrimination and prejudice
to succeed and rise.
This
perspective
is
problematic and completely
wrong; as someone who comes

from
an
Asian-American
background and community,
the idea of success through
hard work is deeply ingrained
into the culture. Children
face a lot of pressure from
their
parents
to
achieve
certain expectations, and it
is due to parental sacrifices
and priorities that Asian-
American children are turned
into hard working machines.
The
model
minority
stereotype
only
reinforces
the racial divide between
minorities
and
instead
perpetuates
discrimination
when it comes to programs like
affirmative action. The lack
of racial privilege that Asian-
Americans have compared to
white students should not be
forgotten; just because the
mindset of hard work that
exists in Asian culture pushes
Asian-American children to
perform at a certain standard
does not automatically mean
that they are less racially
disadvantaged. On the other
hand, one minority group’s
success should not set a
precedent
or
expectations
for another. We should strive
to remember that privilege
exists and varies on all levels.
There is a need to promote
equality
and
ensure
that
those who begin in more
disadvantageous
situations
are given the opportunity to
succeed.
Affirmative action is not
the problem here. Sure, it is
not the perfect solution to
tackling the larger issue of
socioeconomic
inequality
and
racial
privilege,
but
we should not attempt to
dismantle it. It has been ruled
that affirmative action does
not hurt white students, so
we need to focus on changing
the
inequalities
that
are
deeply
ingrained
in
our
society. Rather, the system
can be improved upon, so it
does not hurt the groups it
was designed to help. Invest
more
in
public
primary
education or create programs
to encourage and lift less-
privileged students to the
same level of opportunity.
Don’t
pit
students
who
are
already
disadvantaged
against each other at the
benefit of a group that has
more privilege to begin with.
Instead, focus on ensuring
that everyone has the same
opportunity
regardless
so that we eventually will
have no need to implement
programs that force diversity
to be created.

SAM FOGEL | COLUMN

A world falling prey to demagogues

EVAN STERN | COLUMN

The wealth tax: an ineffective and dangerous measure
F

or many, taxes have
always been a dreaded
and inevitable fact of
life.
Considering
the
sheer
complexity of the system and
the stress that often comes
with sending the check off to
the government, paying taxes
— while being essential to the
well-being of our society — is
ultimately difficult at times.
But
amid
the
divisive
2020 presidential race, the
more liberal members of the
Democratic field — notably Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren,
D-Mass.,
and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. —
have proposed a dramatic new
measure dubbed the “Wealth
Tax.” This proposal would
bring our government even
more tax revenue, trillions of
dollars more, as the proposals
have outlined.
While
our
federal
government
has
generally
taxed income and property,
among
other
common
and
current sources of tax revenue,
the wealth tax would be a new
measure never before enacted
in the United States. Differing
heavily
from
present-day
methods of taxation, the wealth
tax would target only the top
0.1
percent
of
Americans,
taking a considerable chunk
of
those
taxpayers’
total
income
each
year.
Under
Warren’s more modest, though
nonetheless worrisome plan,
the government would collect
nearly $3 trillion over a 10
year period from this measure,
while Sanders’ more ambitious
actions would produce even
more, cutting the wealth of
billionaires in half over a 15
year period, as stated on his
website
The truth is, what Warren
and Sanders are addressing is a
serious issue in our nation, with
real and concerning economic
and
societal
implications.
Income inequality continues to
deepen; with the top 1 percent
of Americans holding nearly
40 percent of total wealth, and
the bottom 90 percent holding
only about a quarter, according
to research published in a May
2019 Business Insider article.

A wealth tax would in theory
work against this destructive
inequality, taking from the
top of the top and lifting up
the rest of American society
through beneficial programs.
As theorized by the Institute
on Taxation and Economic
Policy, the measure “would
raise revenue to make public
investments and curb growing
inequality among Americans.”
However, while millions of
Americans
are
undoubtedly
suffering
disproportionately
compared to the top income-
earners, the wealth tax is
ultimately
not
the
answer.
Many
in
this
nation
may
support enacting it, as recent
data suggests, but this seems
to
come
from
a
common,
unwarranted sense of unity
against
the
wealthiest
taxpayers.
The staggering divide is
surely disturbing, but it doesn’t
justify going after the top 0.1
percent. On the contrary, this
wealthy taxbase is one of the
powerhouses of our economy,
serving as a significant source
of investment that works to
stimulate economic activity and
benefit all. Forcing billionaires
and others to hand over large
portions of their net worths
would surely reduce business
investment,
consequently
slowing
our
economy
and
hurting everybody.
“You’re going to completely
disincentivize
capital
investment, which is going to
be very, very bad for economic
growth,” Treasury Secretary
Steven
Mnuchin
said
to
the New York Times in an
interview from September. In
the end, what Warren, Sanders
and
others
are
proposing
would directly cut off one of
the greatest stimulants in our
economic system.
Furthermore,
the
wealth
tax
would
rapidly
punish
the innovation and audacity
that have fostered such great
advances in our country. Why
would
a
wealthy
business
owner set out to invent and
sell a revolutionary product if
they knew that they could one

day be penalized for making
significant profits? Under a
wealth tax, there would be
fewer incentives to produce
and improve on many of the
technological
leaps
of
our
lifetimes for fear of getting
significantly wealthy, only to
have a sizable chunk of these
earnings taken away. There
are few entrepreneurs who
would one day want to see as
much as half of their wealth
taken from them by our federal
government. The wealth tax is
really an un-American measure
disguised as a beneficial one
that will work to undermine
the spirit of hard work that
defines
our
respected
free
market economy.
And moreover, the tax is
not the necessity that Warren
and Sanders market it as.
Proponents claim that we need
the additional revenue, but
there is great evidence that
the federal government has
mismanaged its current tax
revenue for years. For the war
on terror, a widely criticized
effort, our federal government
spent nearly $2.5 trillion, an
amount that could have likely
been
significantly
reduced
with better leadership. There
is far too much fraud, waste
and misallocation of resources
in our government’s current
operations to consider pumping
even more revenue into the
system. We all would be much
better off supporting a dramatic
restructuring of our leaders’
current spending habits before
we attempt to weaken one of
the key drivers of our economy.
Without a doubt, we have
much work to do to address
the
disturbing
income
inequality
rampant
in
our
society, something we have
unfortunately grappled with
for generations. But in a nation
that has often been admired
for its great inventiveness, we
surely have the power in us to
tackle our problems without
killing that same spirit of
innovation in the process.

I

f you’ve been paying any
attention to things the
past couple years, it can
seem like the world is going
mad. The Amazon rainforest
is
burning,
the
president
is using Twitter to defend
himself against impeachment,
the U.K. is imploding from
the pressure of Brexit and
Hong Kong is embroiled in
a fight for its democracy,
among many other prominent
struggles. It’s hard to keep up
with it all. But in the chaos
of the modern era, there’s a
dangerous and demonstrable
trend
that
seems
to
be
popping up.
In places all around the
world, fascist demagogues
are coming to power. In
Poland, the institutions that
preside are facing a battle
with PiS (Law and Justice
Party), a nationalistic party
that prides itself on anti-
immigrant and anti-LGBTQ
rhetoric. In the Philippines
there is President Rodrigo
Duterte,
a
leader
who
outright kills drug dealers. In
India we have Prime Minister
Narenda
Modi,
who
uses
Islamophobia in the Hindu
populace to inspire support
and
congregate
power
in
the
executive
branch.
In
Brazil
there’s

President
Jair Bolsonaro, a man who
fetishizes
the
military
dictatorship that ruled Brazil
from the mid-1960s to the
1980s. And of course, we
have Trump, who stirs up
the divisions of this country
and strips the press of its
credibility
through
“fake
news”
gaslighting.
Right-
wing populism is on the rise,
and you should be scared.
Let’s first focus on PiS
(Prawo i Sprawiedliwo´s´c) in
Poland. PiS is a right-wing,
nationalistic party that first
came to power in 2015 in the
wake of Donald Tusk leaving
Poland to become President
of
the
European Council.
The party prides itself on a
rhetoric of anti-LGBTQ and

anti-immigrant
sentiments,
with
typical
nationalist
slogans including (but not
limited
to)
“refugees
get
out” and “pure Poland, white
Poland.” Since PiS came to
power, the country has been
in a crisis of rolling back
constitutional rights, with the
party gaining more and more
control over the government.
PiS almost passed a law that
would
require
judges
to
retire based on age, which
would
almost
immediately
relinquish 24 out of the 76
seats on the Polish Supreme
Court. The law would have
expanded the court to 120
judges as well, which would
give PiS immediate control
over two-thirds of the court
by means of the president
appointing judges who would
follow
the
party’s
whim.
This congregation of power
within the ruling party is
a guaranteed way to get
oppressive decrees against
marginalized groups.
Another example can be
seen in the large democracy
of
Brazil.
Jair
Bolsonaro
was
elected
president
in
late 2018 and took power on
January 1 this year. Some of
Jair’s rhetoric includes anti-
LGBTQ, sexism and racism.
Conventions too familiar for
comfort. Bolsonaro has been
quoted saying that criminals
“should die on the street like
cockroaches,” and is noted
as wanting to rid his country
of “lefties” and communists.
And he’s gone on record in
support of President Donald
Trump. By the way, Bolsonaro
is selling hundreds of miles
of the Amazon rainforest to
loggers and farmers. It’s one
of the reasons the forest is
burning up right now.
In
the
world’s
largest
democracy
—
India
—
a
populist leader was elected
on the back of Islamophobia
and nationalism. India finds
itself embroiled in a decade
long rivalry with Pakistan
and is incredibly vulnerable

to such toxic campaigning.
Islamic
immigrants
from
places like Bangladesh have
been labeled as “termites”
and wretches of society by
members of Modi’s party.
After Modi’s first election,
lynch mobs against Muslims
cropped
up,
and
those
inciting them got away with
their extrajudicial killings.
Unfortunately, India is falling
victim to the nationalist wave
many in the Western world
are succumbing to as well.
The commonality between
all of these different instances
can be found within the gripes
of the people: a failing system
with forces acting in bad faith
manipulating the affected.
A corrupt government left
a power vacuum in Brazil
once they were found out;
Polish
right-wing
actors
blamed unrelated problems
on
the
emerging
migrant
crisis; a nation consisting of
0.1 percent Muslim people
(38,000) fell to Islamophobic
fervor; a nation still recovering
from the economic crash of
2008 and faced with a more
powerful China is blaming its
economic woes on Mexican
immigrants who are fleeing
their own country at the
behest of wealthy legislators.
Unchecked
rhetoric
can
become a malignant movement
of far-right extremity. What
we can take from this here in
the United States is a reflection
of how similar movements can
take hold, with an emboldening
far right taking advantage of
the political turmoil in the
Trump era. Keep tabs on the
rhetoric being thrown around
in discourse, and don’t be
swayed in your thinking by
demagogues who prey on
your fear. Speak up against
bad
faith
actors
putting
the blame on marginalized
people
and
demonstrate
against injustice. Don’t let
your country fall to fascism.

Alice Lin can be reached at

alicelin@umich.edu.

Affirmative
action is not the
problem here

Evan Stern can be reached at

erstern@umich.edu.

Sam Fogel can be reached at

samfogel@umich.edu.

JOIN EDITORIAL BOARD
Students are encouraged to come to our weekly Editorial Board
meetings, which occur each Monday and Wednesday from 7:17-
8:45 p.m. in the Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Email our Editorial
Page Editors with questions on how to get involved.