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.