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.