Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Joel Danilewitz
Cheryn Hong

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White 
Lola Yang

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

CHLOE PLESCHER | COLUMN

Resist diet culture in the new year

We should embrace aggressive climate plans

A

s the new year looms, 
so do resolutions of 
weight loss. Dieting to 
lose weight is the second most 
popular resolution in the United 
States for 2019, with exercising 
to get into shape being the first. 
Even though only 64 percent 
stick with their resolutions after 
January and only 46 percent 
after June, every year Americans 
pledge to lose weight. 
Diet resolutions feed into our 
fatphobic society, worshipping 
thinness and degrading fatness. 
In fact, data from 2010 show that 
Americans spent over $60 billion 
on dieting and diet products. 
Women’s magazines advertise 
weight loss at every grocery 
store check-out lane and social 
media is littered with clean-
eating accounts and weight-loss 
promises. Even television hosts 
Jenna Hager and Hoda Kotb 
nervously weighed themselves 
live 
on 
air 
before 
starting 
their intermittent fasting diet. 
Moreover, Michigan is the only 
state with a civil rights law 
prohibiting a workplace to fire 
someone because of their weight. 
While some cities have similar 
protections, the other 49 states 
have no state-wide laws. All of 
these contribute to our nation’s 
diet culture.
From intermittent fasting and 
the keto diet to low-fat diets, you 
usually have at least one friend 
trying something new in an 
attempt to lose weight. Fad diets 
continually cycle, brainwashing 
people into believing they will 
actually work. About 95 percent 
of people who lose weight from 
diets will regain the weight (and 
possibly even more) within one 
to five years. Additionally, there 
are more side effects to fad diets 
than temporary weight loss. 
Dehydration, weakness, nausea, 
headaches and general lack of 
nutrients are some of the side 
effects from fad diets. I suffered 
from these same side effects 
when I was actively in my eating 
disorder.
Unfortunately, dieting does 
not only affect adults. Teenagers 

and kids are just as subject to 
dieting and fatphobia. According 
to a study by the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, teenagers 
aged 14 to 15 who dieted 
moderately 
were 
five 
times 
more likely to develop an eating 
disorder and those who heavily 
restricted their diets were 18 
times more likely to develop 
an eating disorder. This was 
coupled with unhealthy weight 
control behaviors. According to 
researcher Dianne Neumark-
Sztainer, 
teenage 
boys 
and 
girls engage in skipping meals, 
smoking, vomiting, laxative use 
and fasting. Diet culture is an 
issue that affects every age and 
gender. And for those already 
eating-disordered, diet culture 
perpetuates eating disorders and 
makes “a full recovery almost 
impossible.” For me, much of 
my time in outpatient treatment 
involved coping with societal 
triggers and evading diet culture, 
especially near the holidays.
This is not to say never try to 
lose weight or be ashamed if you 
have. Everyone has different 
reasons to lose weight. For some, 
it is because of compromising 
health conditions where it is 
important to work with doctors 
and 
dietitians 
to 
create 
a 
sustaining meal plan to remain 
healthy. But by doing so, one can 
still help resist diet culture.
There are multiple ways to 
counteract diet culture. First, 
use the Health at Every Size 
logic and guidelines — weight 
loss or gain is not necessarily 
a sign of improved health. 
Excluding extreme cases, people 
can be healthy or unhealthy at 
any weight. Personally, I know 
skinny and fat people who are 
healthy as well as some who 
are unhealthy. Weight is not 
the sole determining factor of 
health, yet society continually 
shames fat people even though 
being extremely underweight is 
ultimately more dangerous than 
the counterpart. 
Furthermore, 
through 
fad 
diets and fatphobia, our culture 
glorifies eating disorders for fat 

people, while showing concern 
for eating disorders in thin 
people. Society degrades fat 
people while putting thin (and 
emaciated) people on pedestals. 
Therefore, equal access to care 
is necessary. But equal access 
cannot happen until society 
reframes their thinking around 
fat people. It is important to 
reflect on your own weight 
biases and actions.
Second, acknowledge your 
thin privilege, if applicable, and 
use it to help resist diet culture. 
Though a newly popular phrase, 
thin privilege has implications 
everywhere, 
especially 
in 
seating. Knowing you are able 
to comfortably sit in movie 
theaters, doctors’ offices, planes 
and 
restaurants 
means 
you 
have thin privilege. This is not 
a bad thing; people did not ask 
for it. Thin privilege is merely 
a result of a fatphobic society. 
However, people can choose 
to 
acknowledge 
their 
thin 
privilege and become involved 
in activism. From asking how to 
help, welcoming fat people to sit 
next to you or participating in 
Weight Stigma Awareness Week 
these small actions can help fight 
the nationwide fatphobia that 
diet culture encourages.
Finally, 
do 
not 
give 
out 
unwarranted 
health 
advice. 
Health advice should come from 
professionals, such as doctors 
or dietitians. However, make 
sure your doctor or dietitian is 
part of the Health at Every Size 
movement, as even professionals 
can be fatphobic. 
There is no one way to cure 
diet culture. It is a $60 billion 
industry. 
However, 
we 
can 
perform small acts of resistance 
to not only help ourselves but 
others impacted by diet culture 
and the fatphobia within the 
culture. Fat people deserve the 
same treatment as thin people. 
Weight is not a measure of 
worth. It is time our society 
reflects that. 

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

Chloe Plescher can be reached at 

chloebp@umich.edu.

W

hile 
speaking 
at 
the 
Democracy 
Alliance 
meeting 
held 
in 
Washington, 
D.C. 
this month, former President 
Barack Obama criticized far-
left policies promoted by the 
current Democratic presidential 
candidates. 
He 
acknowledged 
that growth as a country is 
possible without having to change 
everything 
about 
it, 
stating, 
“This is still a country that is less 
revolutionary than it is interested 
in improvement. (Americans) like 
seeing things improved. But the 
average American doesn’t think 
that we have to completely tear 
down the system and remake it.”
By referencing some of the 
passionate and aggressively liberal 
presidential candidates such as 
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and 
Elizabeth 
Warren 
(D-Mass.), 
Obama brings into discussion 
whether we should have the 
mentality of creating revolutionary 
change or implementing gradual 
change. 
In 
other 
words, 
he 
addresses 
the 
monumental 
changes that certainly should be 
made for this country but questions 
their effectiveness if executed 
comprehensively at an immediate 
rate. Some aspects of Obama’s 
legacy could certainly serve as 
an example for institutionalized 
positive change in our country. 
However, 
the 
aggressive 
institutional 
approaches 
taken 
by the Democratic presidential 
candidates are necessary for the 
amount of attention the climate 
issue requires for positive change.
In the face of looming climate 
devastation, 
Sanders 
has 
demonstrated his support for the 
Green New Deal and has catered his 
climate plan towards addressing 
the major issues outlined in this 
nonbinding legislation. Essentially, 
Sanders’s plan consists of phasing 
out 
infrastructure 
dependent 
on fossil fuels, implementing 
planting techniques to sequester 
carbon and targeting oil, gas and 
coal companies for prosecution, 
altogether 
reducing 
carbon 
emissions in the United States 
71 percent by 2030. His plan 
relies heavily on the decisions of 
members of Congress to pass his 
proposed 
legislation, 
evidently 

striving to embed the importance 
of climate care into the law of the 
land. While this plan is projected to 
cost $16.3 trillion over the decade 
during which it is implemented, it is 
also projected to ultimately save the 
United States economy $21 trillion 
over 30 years through averting the 
costs of infrastructural damage 
from natural disasters that would 
occur from intense climate events. 
Following the departure of Gov. 
Jay Inslee from the Democratic 
presidential 
candidate 
race, 
Warren adopted ideas from his 
campaign that focused heavily on 
combating climate change. She 
states in her new climate plan: 
“While his presidential campaign 
may be over, his ideas should 
remain at the center of the agenda.” 
While 
she 
has 
demonstrated 
her foundational support for the 
Green New Deal, Warren also 
considers 
public 
health 
care, 
environmental justice and policies 
that prevent exploitation of tribal 
and public lands as necessary and 
major considerations for an all-
encompassing 
agenda. 
Similar 
to the plan proposed by Sanders, 
Warren’s plan would be funded 
substantially by the reversal of 
the Trump administration’s tax 
cuts for wealthy individuals and 
corporations. In essence, Sanders, 
Warren and other Democratic 
presidential 
candidates 
have 
demonstrated 
the 
projected 
economic 
feasibility 
of 
their 
climate plans to the public in an 
effort to amplify the importance of 
the issue.
When attempting the most 
optimal plan to address the climate 
issue, we are caught between 
making a plan that is feasible and 
considering the likelihood of facing 
irreversible climate devastation. In 
the present reality, we truly have 
no way of knowing how successful 
one plan could be over another 
despite the projected outcomes 
each one has. We are faced with 
these questions as we address 
the climate issue: Is trying to 
implement this radical plan better 
or worse than not trying? Should 
we instead adopt a more realistic 
policy proven to guarantee some 
progress? 
Considering 
the 
current 
decline of our environment today, 

aggressive approaches are the only 
possible methods for restoring 
the environment to the extent 
necessary for living beings to not 
fall into permanent extinction. 
Thus, regardless of their feasibility 
or lack thereof, we should be of the 
mindset that we need monumental 
reconstruction to achieve climate 
restoration.
Today, not enough institutions 
prioritize this mentality in their 
decision-making for the economy 
and public policy. As a result, it’s up 
to us to seek what institutions and 
society fail to present to us and to 
understand that no step forward 
is 
counterproductive 
to 
our 
existence, despite the costs that 
it may carry. We must hold each 
other accountable for the ways 
we think and the actions we take, 
knowing that positive outcomes 
of our actions only occur when we 
make the moral decision. 
Here on this campus, we are 
blessed to even have the choice of 
how we react to the climate issue. 
We take for granted the fact that 
our lives aren’t at stake when we 
choose to be wasteful. We forget 
that the impacts are monumental 
on disadvantaged communities 
and that they have no choice but 
to decide to survive. The climate 
catastrophe 
is 
growing 
more 
volatile and tainted everyday, 
something that we are out of touch 
with because of our privileges 
in this community. Thus, we 
should act like our reaction to 
this issue determines our own 
survival because the necessary 
impact we need to fix the state of 
the environment will only start 
to begin on the day that everyone 
chooses to act for it. In light of this, 
we should all support the people 
fighting for everyone’s survival 
through 
revolutionary 
climate 
policy. Most of those who serve 
are good people — even heroes — 
but our reverence and respect for 
them does not preclude us from 
demanding high standards. In fact, 
unwillingness to discourage the 
misconduct of wayward service 
members cheapens and erodes 
the respect that virtuous service 
members have rightfully earned.

Kianna Marquez can be reached 

at kmarquez@umich.edu.

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.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The 
Michigan Daily for first-person accounts of sexual 
assault and its corresponding personal, academic and 
legal implications. Submission information can be 
found at https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

The perils of refusing to call out Eddie Gallagher
L

ast week, in a move 
that defied the wishes 
of Pentagon officials, 
President 
Donald 
Trump 
blocked the removal of Chief 
Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher 
— an accused war criminal 
— from the Navy SEALs. In 
addition, 
Trump 
restored 
Gallagher’s 
rank, 
and 
the 
debacle led to the firing of Navy 
Secretary Richard Spencer who 
had argued against Gallagher 
remaining a SEAL. In a final 
letter 
to 
Trump, 
Spencer 
acknowledged his termination 
and stated Trump does not 
have “the same understanding” 
of the “rule of law … good order 
and discipline.”
Spencer’s letter is scathing, 
and for good reason. Gallagher’s 
retention of his rank and SEAL 
pin is entirely unwarranted and 
defies the moral standards we 
should uphold in our military. 
To recap Gallagher’s case: In 
2017, Gallagher was deployed 
in Iraq with Navy Seal Team 
7. In Iraq, Gallagher allegedly 
stabbed an unarmed, teenage 
ISIS prisoner and took trophy 
pictures 
with 
the 
body. 
Gallagher 
was 
reported 
by 
others in his platoon, and after 
a Navy investigation, Gallagher 
was charged with premeditated 
murder, shooting at civilians (in 
other incidents), threatening his 
subordinates to not cooperate 
with 
the 
investigation 
and 
taking photos with the dead 
insurgent. He was also charged 
with obstruction of justice for 
threatening to kill SEALs who 
report him.
Prior to his trial, Gallagher 
received considerable support 
and attention from several 
conservatives, 
including 
18 
House Republicans, Fox News 
commentator 
Pete 
Hegseth 
and Trump, who intervened 
to move Gallagher to “less 
restrictive 
confinement” 
in 
March. Conservative support 
for Gallagher intensified after 
the lead prosecutor in his case 
was removed for misconduct. 
Still, Navy prosecutors believed 
their case was solid: Gallagher 
had posted trophy photos with 
the corpse, Gallagher appeared 
to admit responsibility for the 
killing in text messages and 
several eyewitnesses testified 
they saw Gallagher stab the 
prisoner.

However, 
the 
legal 
case 
fell 
apart 
when 
Corey 
Scott, another witness who 
was 
conveniently 
granted 
immunity, changed his story on 
the stand and claimed to be the 
one who killed the prisoner by 
covering his breathing tube. In 
the aftermath, Gallagher was 
acquitted of murder but found 
guilty of taking a trophy photo 
with the prisoner’s corpse, for 
which he was demoted.

Now to be clear, while Scott’s 
dramatic reversal torpedoed the 
Navy prosecutors’ legal case, 
abundant evidence points to 
Gallagher’s guilt. When pressed 
on the stand by prosecutors as 
to why he changed his story, 
Scott responded that Gallagher 
did not have to go to prison. 
Scott’s dramatic reversal did 
not spur the other witnesses 
to change their testimony, nor 
does it explain Gallagher’s text 
messages in which he admitted 
culpability for the killing. Navy 
prosecutors were so confident 
Scott’s testimony was a lie 
they explored the possibility of 
charging him with perjury, but 
ultimately concluded there was 
not a viable legal path to do so. 
One final key point is that no 
one, not even Scott, denies that 
Gallagher stabbed the prisoner 
in the neck — though Scott 
claims the stabbing did not 
appear fatal.
Gallagher’s 
acquittal 
provided 
a 
potential 
point 
of 
closure 
in 
the 
saga. 
Unfortunately, 
conservatives 
doubled-down on their bizarre 
commitment to defending a 
clear-cut war criminal, keeping 
the case in the spotlight. Trump 
publicly 
mulled 
pardoning 
Gallagher, reinstated his rank 
and 
ultimately 
intervened 
to allow Gallagher to retire 
as a SEAL. This creates a 

mockery of the independence 
of the military-justice system 
and strains the separation of 
military and political affairs.
In the wake of Spencer’s 
ouster, Defense Secretary Mark 
Esper 
expressed 
frustration 
that the Gallagher case has been 
so “distracted” and “dragged on 
for so long,” confirming that 
Trump made the final decision 
to block his removal from the 
SEALs. Esper is correct that 
the case has been long and 
distracting, 
but 
the 
larger 
shame 
is 
the 
self-inflicted 
black eye for the United States 
military. Our military rightfully 
prides itself on being just, 
precise and professional, but 
this well-earned reputation is 
impugned by the commander-
in-chief’s vocal support for war 
criminals – and it is not just 
Gallagher. Trump, conservative 
media, Republican members of 
Congress and everyone who 
rushed to defend Gallagher and 
other American war criminals 
are to blame for this debacle.
Gallagher is not a good man, 
and he clearly does not exhibit 
the character demanded from 
those who represent the U.S. 
in uniform. However, his case 
offers a lesson on how we react 
to the wrongdoings of those 
who serve. Those who serve our 
country and our communities 
— whether as soldiers, police 
officers, firefighters or first 
responders 
— 
make 
great 
sacrifices and are deserving of 
our sincere and solemn respect. 
However, with their sacrifice 
comes 
great 
responsibility, 
trust and power. Whether it 
be a soldier who kills unarmed 
prisoners or a police officer 
who racially profiles, we must 
be willing to call out those who 
violate the responsibilities they 
are entrusted with. 
Most of those who serve 
are 
good 
people 
— 
even 
heroes — but our reverence 
and respect for them does not 
preclude us from demanding 
high 
standards. 
In 
fact, 
unwillingness to discourage 
the misconduct of wayward 
service 
members 
cheapens 
and erodes the respect that 
virtuous service members have 
rightfully earned.

Republican members 

of Congress and 

everyone who rushed 

to defend Gallagher 

are to blame for this 

debacle

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

