Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 17, 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

ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN

How to navigate the gun control fight
T

he issue of guns in 
America 
is 
deeply 
emotional and divisive. 
As the Democratic candidates 
vie for their party’s presidential 
nomination, it is critical that 
they recognize the optics of 
this issue and do not reinforce 
Republican talking points on 
gun confiscation. 
While all the Democratic 
presidential candidates support 
some form of gun control, 
the issue of a mandatory gun 
buyback 
program 
divides 
the 
candidates. 
Sen. 
Cory 
Booker, D-N.J., Sen. Kamala 
Harris, D-Calif., and former 
Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, 
have all announced that, as 
president, they would push for 
a mandatory buyback program 
of 
certain 
semi-automatic 
weapons.
Meanwhile, 
Sen. 
Bernie 
Sanders, D-V.T., Sen. Elizabeth 
Warren, D-Mass. and former 
Vice 
President 
Joe 
Biden 
have all called for instituting 
a 
voluntary 
gun 
buyback 
program. 
From a purely ideological 
perspective, I strongly support 
a mandatory buyback program 
for 
certain 
semi-automatic 
weapons. I have come to this 
position in the same way that 
many other young people have: 
growing up in an era plagued 
with gun violence. We are tired 
of the endless violence, we are 
tired of being afraid and we 
are tired of the empty thoughts 
and prayers offered after every 
shooting. 
While I had always been a 
major supporter of gun control, 
it was the shooting in Dayton, 
Ohio, this summer that pushed 
me to support a mandatory 
buyback 
on 
semi-automatic 
assault weapons. Due to the 
heroism of a police officer, 
that shooting lasted only 32 
seconds. However, in those 32 
seconds, the shooter was still 
able to kill nine people. The 
idea that any weapon can fire 
enough bullets in 30 seconds to 
end nine innocent lives proves 
why we should not have these 
weapons of war on our streets. 
I am also personally in favor 
of restricting semi-automatic 

handguns, which can also fire 
an obscene number of bullets in 
a short amount of time. 
Unfortunately, 
beliefs 
do 
not always align with political 
pragmatism. 
Though 
most 
Democrats 
and 
I 
support 
a 
mandatory 
full 
buyback 
of 
semi-automatic 
assault 
weapons, this is not feasible 
in this political climate. Even 
worse, I believe that the calls 
for a mandatory gun buyback 
program 
play 
directly 
into 
the hands of the Republican 
Party and the National Rifle 
Association.

The GOP and the gun lobby 
love 
to 
warn 
people 
that 
Democrats 
are 
coming 
for 
their guns and, by extension, 
their liberty. In reality, the 
Democrats are simply in favor of 
common-sense gun regulations 
that help ensure the safety 
of all Americans. Even if this 
mandatory 
buyback 
program 
were to be implemented, it 
would only apply to certain semi-
automatic assault weapons.
The specifics of the proposed 
policy have been overshadowed 
by media coverage of each 
candidates’ proposed mandatory 
gun buybacks. This coverage is 
mostly centered on O’Rourke, 
who has made gun control a 
main tenet of his campaign. 
When 
asked 
about 
his 
suggested 
mandatory 
gun 
buyback 
program, 
O’Rourke 
proudly 
proclaimed, 
“Hell 
yes, we’re going to take your 
AR-15, your AK-47.” This line 
has become a rallying cry of his 
campaign, even appearing on 
campaign merchandise. 

While this line may elicit 
cheers from those on the left, 
it only serves to further the 
political divide on the issue 
of guns. Instead of explaining 
the merits of a mandatory gun 
buyback program or citing the 
success that Australia had in 
curbing violence following their 
mandatory buyback, O’Rourke is 
instead simply providing fodder 
for the GOP. 
Democrats should instead 
be focused on highlighting 
the many common-sense gun 
measures 
that 
their 
party 
stands for, including red flag 
laws, 
expanded 
background 
checks and efforts to keep guns 
out of the hands of domestic 
abusers. 
These policies are much 
more 
popular 
than 
the 
mandatory buyback program. 
According to a September 2019 
poll, 83 percent of Americans 
support background checks for 
gun purchases at gun shows or 
other private sales. This has far 
more support than a mandatory 
gun buyback program, which 
an NPR and PBS NewsHour’s 
poll showed was only supported 
by 70 percent of Democrats. 
But for Independents, only 40 
percent supported it, and for 
Republicans, it was only 23 
percent.
I admire O’Rourke for his 
tenacity on this issue and for 
taking this stand. However, 
right now Democrats must 
focus on doing all they can to 
win back not only the White 
House, but also the Senate. No 
legislation on guns is likely to 
be passed if President Donald 
Trump is reelected for a second 
term or if Republicans hold the 
Senate. That is why candidates 
should focus on the parts of 
gun control that have a greater 
consensus. And if candidates 
want to speak in favor of 
a 
mandatory 
gun 
buyback 
program, they should watch 
their words carefully and use 
their platform to emphasize 
the positives of such programs 
and not play into the hands of 
Republicans.

SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN

The tyranny of meritocracy is all around us

JOSHUA KIM | COLUMN

Immigration policy is not solely Trump’s fault
O

n 
Oct. 
2, 
President 
Donald 
Trump’s 
administration 
set 
plans 
to 
conduct 
a 
mass 
collection of DNA samples from 
migrants taken into custody. 
The implications of this policy 
could be massive: Hundreds of 
thousands of migrants would 
have their DNA stored into a 
national FBI database. 
At 
the 
Department 
of 
Homeland 
Security, 
senior 
officials stated that this move 
would 
grant 
immigration 
officials 
and 
officers 
the 
jurisdiction 
to 
collect 
the 
DNA from anyone held within 
border detention facilities. At 
any given time, roughly 40,000 
migrants are held within those 
facilities. 
Some 
contend 
that 
this 
measure is not severe since 
a similar program already 
exists at the border. Operation 
Double Helix is an active 
protocol being practiced to 
help border agents determine 
genetic links between parents 
and their children in hopes 
to identify child trafficking 
operations. 
However, 
what 
makes this new policy a truly 
abhorrent unethical wreck is 
its scope.
A basic American principle 
of justice suggests a policy 
of probable cause. At least in 
the case of Operation Double 
Helix, the basis of that protocol 
is to ultimately deter crimes 
particularly pertaining to human 
trafficking. However, this new 
program would give authorities 
the absolute power to invade the 
privacy of migrants regardless of 
probable cause. The fact that any 
person would think to implement 
such a policy is antithetical to 
common American values and it 
is shameful to make one’s own 
privacy the cost for entry.

Of the few supporters of 
this policy, some attempt to 
rationalize it by reminding 
us that illegal immigration 
is a crime. However, then 
the logical conclusion would 
be 
that 
not 
only 
illegal 
immigration – but also every 
first-time 
misdemeanor 
– 
should also be eligible for DNA 
collection by the FBI. Got your 
second minor in possession 
in Michigan? Eligible. Drank 
a little too much in public? 
Eligible. Got some marijuana? 
Eligible. 
With that disgusting and 
asinine 
logic, 
the 
bar 
for 
officials to violate one’s privacy 
is a low one, making it even 
more insulting to suggest that 
a first-time misdemeanor like 
migrating across the border 
would be suitable grounds for 
officials to funnel DNA into a 
comprehensive national FBI 
database. 
The administration’s move 
to pursue this type of policy 
reveals that Trump will go to 
extreme lengths to desperately 
“fulfill” his campaign promise 
to be hard on immigration. 
Instead of a “glorious” wall 
expanding 
along 
the 
U.S.-
Mexico border, Trump has 
opted to create a genetic barrier 
with a eugenic air. 
Though this may seem like 
an abuse of executive power, 
it’s not. One could only argue 
that 
Trump’s 
policies 
are 
grossly unethical. And that’s 
the 
most 
troubling 
part. 
Legally, 
Trump 
potentially 
has the grounds to enact 
this 
policy 
without 
any 
constitutional 
pushback. 
Under the DNA Fingerprint 
Act of 2005, Trump would 
have 
the 
executive 
power 
as president to implement 
his initiative because it falls 

within 
the 
legally 
broad 
definition for DNA collection. 
That’s the reality of the entire 
immigration border crisis: Not 
all of this is Trump’s doing. 
True, people can argue that 
Trump handles immigration 
with an uncontained racist 
fervor to feed his base, but 
what people cannot deny is 
that immigration has been 
in 
constant 
humanitarian 
and ethical crisis for decades 
regardless of who is president. 
The detention centers at the 
border existed during Barack 
Obama’s 
presidency 
with 
undeniably terrible conditions. 
Obama deported more people 
than Trump. U.S. Immigration 
and 
Customs 
Enforcement, 
commonly 
known 
as 
ICE, 
was founded under the Bush 
Administration in 2003.
Immigration is a problem 
that 
predated 
Trump. 
Ultimately, 
most 
of 
the 
problems related to presidents 
and 
their 
immigration 
policies can be rooted in law. 
Immigration laws have been 
designed to be so broad in 
purpose that the executive 
branch can use these laws and 
powers with impunity.
Due to loose and poorly 
developed laws, Congress has 
allowed immigration to be 
melded by the whims of the 
president. Instead of actually 
developing 
a 
basic 
moral 
standard 
for 
immigrants, 
partisans have decided that 
their views are the only correct 
ways to see the immigration 
crisis. And this failure to 
confidently amend the issues 
at the border will continue to 
cost immigrants their liberty, 
privacy and humanity. 

A

lmost every time I ask 
someone 
how 
they 
are doing during this 
gloomy, midterm-filled week, 
they respond with “tired.” This 
response bothers me because 
it is hard to respond to and is 
sometimes said to prove how 
hard people are working. I am 
sympathetic because hard work 
has become a tool not only for 
individuals to satisfy their own 
guilt and anxieties, but also 
because it is a prerequisite for 
high social status in the pseudo-
meritocracy 
we 
are 
being 
groomed to join. However, blame 
for this toxic culture does not fall 
onto the individuals that feed 
it. Rather, it is the fault of the 
narratives of meritocracy and 
equal opportunity that serve to 
reinforce social hierarchies. 
This type of anti-overwork 
thinking is in right now. One of the 
most anticipated social science 
books this year was Daniel 
Markovits’ “The Meritocracy 
Trap.” In it, Markovits argues 
the illusion of contemporary 
meritocracy makes the extreme 
levels of inequality and societal 
hierarchies 
we 
experience 
today 
more 
sustainable. 
He 
points out that this meritocratic 
justification is fundamentally 
different than the arguments 
used to sustain inequality in the 
past. In the 1800s, the wealthy 
worked far less than the poor; it 
was obvious that social status was 
undeserved. The rich were true 
capitalists, just sitting on their 
slowly growing wealth and land. 
However, this blatant inequity 
made 
anti-elitist 
movements 
easy to get behind. Today, the 
landscape has shifted. Instead 
of physical capital to solidify 
their social status, the wealthy 
now have human capital, and 
importantly, the ability to work 
longer hours. Leisure used to be 
a sign of privilege and esteem, 
but it is now looked down upon 
as lazy. The wealthy work as 
much as they want to, while 
the poor struggle to find work. 
This system creates the illusion 
that the wealthy deserve their 
elevated social standing because 
they 
work 
hard, 
protecting 
themselves from criticism. 
Though the arguments made 
to justify social hierarchy have 
changed 
dramatically, 
the 
people making the arguments 
have stayed the same, revealing 
that the difference between 
the two is actually quite small. 
Not 
only 
does 
the 
United 

States’ enormous wealth gap 
obliterate 
the 
possibility 
of 
equal opportunity before birth, 
but research shows that there is 
a strong relationship between 
parent and child income. 
Meritocracy 
has 
been 
co-opted by inherited wealth to 
sustain itself, creating a more 
sustainable version of gross 
inequality while attacking class 
consciousness. One example is 
the arguments often made by 
the white-working class against 
affirmative action. According 
to “The Hidden Injuries of 
Class,” a famous sociological 
study, the white-working class 
often say there is enough equal 
opportunity in the United States 
such that everyone should be able 
to support themselves without 
assistance. But this viewpoint 
supports the inequality and 
social hierarchies that have 
themselves 
decimated 
rural 
populations by implicitly saying 
that they do not deserve the 
opportunities they do not have. 
Even efforts to attack the 
meritocracy subtly sustain it. 
For example, effective altruism 
— a philosophy which advocates 
for the rich to give all their 
money beyond what they need 
to survive to the most needy — 
attacks the meritocracy by saying 
that individuals should give their 
money away to those who need it 
more. Implicit in this ideology is 
that people with money do not 
necessarily deserve their money 
or are obligated to give it away. 
But this philosophy sneakily 
supports the idea that individuals 
are the best decision-makers for 
their money and fails to bring 
about systemic changes in the 
way wealth is distributed beyond 
individual 
altruism. 
Another 
example 
is 
the 
revitalized 
academic focus on working less. 
While externally these efforts 
attack the meritocracy, most of 
these writers (myself included) 
are white men, implying that our 
efforts may just be the facade for 
white economic anxiety over a 
diversifying America and the 
#MeToo era. 
Markovits 
acknowledges 
that one interpretation of his 
argument is that elites should 
not have to work as hard as they 
do to attain their social status. 
While Markovits does not ask 
readers to sympathize with the 
rich, he argues that the rich too 
are hurt by the meritocracy, 
which means that there is an 
opportunity for it to change. 

But even if the rich suffer from 
overwork, they are actually 
benefiting from the meritocracy 
because 
it 
legitimizes 
their 
social status. 
I should perhaps not be 
writing this because I fall 
victim to these same trends. 
I 
consistently 
overschedule 
myself, I am in more than three 
active Slack channels and I feel 
the need to take as many credits 
as I can — even this article was 
finished days after the original 
due date. But I find that though I 
have thought about these issues 
for a long time and believe we 
should be doing less, I cannot 
bring myself to actually do it. 
I think it is because overwork 
is a collective action problem. 
It is hard for any one person to 
unilaterally work less within a 
culture that glorifies work like 
we do. And yet, it is also true that 
some people do not perform their 
work and need to be pushing 
themselves as much as possible 
for any myriad of reasons. It 
comes from a remarkable place 
of privilege to be able to work 
or not work as much as I want 
to based on my philosophical 
inclinations. 
And yet, I feel compelled to 
write about this because I and 
those whom I love are victims to 
this culture on a smaller scale. 
We conceive our value based on 
the systems in which we exist 
— grades, scholarships, whether 
we get the next leadership 
position — but so often these 
systems are false meritocracies.
The psychology seems similar 
to the way Americans think 
about school systems. When 
parents are polled on perceived 
quality of American schools, 
they 
consistently 
think 
the 
education system is terrible, 
but their children’s schools are 
great. 
That is similarly true for 
illusions 
of 
meritocracy. 
Americans 
are 
increasingly 
worried about inequality of 
opportunity on a country-scale, 
yet we continue to believe in our 
local institutions and systems. 
The two cannot both be true, so 
we should apply our scrutiny of 
false meritocracies consistently. 
We should tone down our 
high-level criticism over larger 
issues of false meritocracy, and 
recommit to identifying those 
right around us.

Isabelle Schindler can be reached 

at ischind@umich.edu.

Joshua Kim can be reached at 

joshica@umich.edu.

Solomon Medintz can be reached 

at smedintz@umich.edu.

I strongly support 
a mandatory 
buyback program 
for certain 
semi-automatic 
weapons 

LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK@UMICH.EDU

