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