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