Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White 
Lola Yang

ERIN WHITE
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.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND 
MILES STEPHENSON
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

YASMEEN DOHAN | COLUMN

Two years after #MeToo, we need progress

Far removed from Mandela, the ANC’s legacy decays

I

n October 2017, #MeToo 
swept the web by storm. 
Victims 
of 
sexual 
misconduct 
congregated 
via 
Twitter 
to 
inform 
the general public of the 
pervasiveness 
of 
sexual 
violence, despite its lack of 
coverage in public discussion. 
Although 
an 
outstanding 
number of women experience 
sexual harassment, a large 
majority 
of 
occurrences 
are 
neither 
reported 
nor 
even acknowledged. One of 
the key insights from the 
#MeToo movement was the 
great urgency to implement 
more preventative education 
regarding sexual misconduct, 
an issue that our nation has 
yet to take action on.
As 
a 
young 
girl 
going 
through the public education 
system in Indiana, I found 
that 
health 
class 
was 
the 
laughingstock 
of 
the 
school 
curriculum. 
With 
mundane 
and 
repetitive 
assignments 
following 
day 
after day, we never needed 
to pay attention in class. The 
curriculum 
was 
painfully 
reserved; our lessons were 
confined to learning about 
the human body, abstinence 
and 
sexually 
transmitted 
diseases. Looking back today, 
the conservative education 
I was given is irritating. 
The class had potential to 
teach young, impressionable 
teenagers something greater 
about consent and respect in 
relationships. Yet, in fear of 
being too vulgar or promoting 
sexual activity, the school 
neglected 
this 
immensely 
important 
component 
of 
health. Comprehensive sex ed 
has been proven to work study 
after study and still many 
schools, including mine, have 
never implemented an all-
inclusive sex education. 
While it can be extremely 
empowering 
to 
sexual 
violence 
survivors, 
calling 
out 
perpetrators 
and 
shaming 
their 
behavior 

is simply not enough for 
the 
greater 
meaning 
of 
this 
movement. 
In 
order 
to accomplish what’s most 
serious — preventing sexual 
assault from transpiring in 
the first place — we must 
take preemptive measures. 
Because of the great amount 
of time children spend in 
schools, it is only rational 
these preemptive measures 
be implemented into school 
curriculums. 
Preventative 
education has been proven 
to 
work; 
schools 
already 
have alcohol abuse and drug 
prevention 
programs 
in 
effect, with results showing 
a reduction in the number of 
occurrences of sexual assault. 
If the concepts of consent, 
respect 
for 
others 
and 
sensitivity to their feelings 
were taught more seriously 
in public schools, serious 
advancements could be made 
in the realm of sexual assault 
prevention. 

One 
argument 
against 
including consent in public 
school 
curriculum 
is 
that 
it will only condone sexual 
activity and lead to a rise in 
the rates of pregnancy and 
sexually transmitted diseases. 
However, this has been proven 
to be false. With the age of the 
internet, teenagers are bound 
to learn about sex, whether it 
is taught in schools or not. The 
means from which teenagers 
learn about sex are limitless; 
movies, 
pornography 
and 
music all teach the youth 
about sex, and often portray 

these sexual relationships in 
disrespectful or problematic 
ways. 
Withholding 

information about safe sex and 
consent only harms school-
aged children; preventative 
education could easily combat 
these demeaning portrayals of 
sex.
Another 
argument 
for 
preventative 
education 
regarding sexual assault is the 
fact that gender harassment 
often 
occurs 
as 
early 
as 
kindergarten. Educating on 
sexual assault in the very 
place 
where 
it 
originates 
would be especially effective. 
The 
#MeToo 
movement 
acknowledged 
sexual 
and 
gender-based 
harassment 
in the workplace, but failed 
to 
address 
this 
behavior 
among grade-school children. 
Power dynamics and gender 
socialization 
are 
learned 
at an extremely young age, 
and tackling the subsequent 
problems they spawn in the 
very place they are created 
would most certainly be the 
best way to solve them. If 
young boys were taught their 
seemingly harmless actions 
(like pestering a girl) had 
greater implications, it’d be 
easier for them to understand 
the consequences of their 
actions as they grow older. 
It would be a waste of an 
opportunity 
if 
the 
power 
behind the #MeToo movement 
didn’t change the way our 
school 
systems 
approach 
sexual assault. One change 
that would certainly decrease 
the ubiquity of this problem 
would 
be 
implementing 
preventive 
education 
in 
health 
classes 
of 
public 
schools. From a young age 
children should be taught that 
no means no, and we should 
ingrain in their minds that 
disrespectful 
actions 
have 
serious consequences before 
it is too late.

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

Yasmeen Dohan can be reached 

at yasmeend@umich.edu.

I

n 
1994, 
South 
African 
apartheid ended and the 
nation’s Black community 
was finally granted suffrage. With 
that momentous change, Nelson 
Mandela and the long-outlawed 
African National Congress swept 
into power, winning 252 of the 
400 seats in the nation’s national 
assembly. Beginning here, the 
ANC 
established 
a 
political 
dynasty which has lasted ever 
since — in every election, the ANC 
has maintained their majority 
and won at least 230 seats. As 
the de facto party of liberation, 
the ANC has maintained a 
godlike 
reputation 
within 
the majority-Black nation for 
decades. However, 25 years after 
the ANC’s political ascension, 
their dominance is endangered. 
Largely thanks to self-inflicted 
problems (namely corruption), a 
series of political failures and an 
inability to carry on Mandela’s 
legacy, the ANC has slowly begun 
to lose its grip on power, and risks 
losing the adulation it first earned 
as the party of Black liberation. 
The ANC’s values were first 
officially codified in the Freedom 
Charter, a document written 
in 1955, with the party’s most 
important priority being that 
“The 
People 
Shall 
Govern.” 
When the party gained legitimate 
political power under Mandela, 
it styled itself as a center-left 
social democratic party with a 
focus on African Nationalism, 
anti-imperialism 
and 
social 
consciousness. 
Unfortunately 
for South Africans, the party 
now appears to care about those 
values in name only. 
The ANC’s history of corruption 
stretches back to its original rise to 
power under Mandela, beginning 
in 1994. In order to ensure the 
nation’s transition to full-fledged 
democracy was peaceful, Mandela 
struck a deal with the leaders of 
the old apartheid regime: While 
Black South Africans would be 
given political power, white South 
Africans would maintain their 
control over the vast majority of 
the country’s economic resources. 
Beginning with Mandela himself, 
many ANC leaders and party 
elites — most of whom had 
little individual wealth — were 
essentially bribed by white elites 

to protect their business interests, 
creating a culture of corruption 
and 
exploitation 
which 
has 
persisted ever since.
In tandem with this, a second, 
even more prevalent form of 
corruption emerged within the 
hegemonic ANC: the usage of 
government contracts and funds 
for personal enrichment. Since 
the installment of the ANC-led 
government, 
well-connected 
party members have utilized 
government contracts as a way 
to make money, often funneling 
funds 
away 
from 
legitimate 
projects and into their own 
bank accounts. One of the most 
pertinent 
examples 
of 
this 
corruption was unearthed last 
year, when it was revealed that 
Jacob Zuma, former ANC leader 
and South African president, 
had helped the Gupta family, a 
wealthy business conglomerate, 
pilfer billions of dollars. For two 
decades, the Guptas maintained 
close relationships with political 
leaders within the ANC, a move 
which allowed them to win 
inflated industry contracts and 
enriched both the family and 
South Africa’s elites — all at the 
expense of the greater South 
African populace. 
Even more egregious than 
skimming off of government 
infrastructure 
contracts 
is 
ANC leaders’ long history of 
personally taking funds intended 
for poverty relief, even while 
South Africa maintains its status 
as the most unequal country in 
the world. Throughout South 
Africa, politicians taking money 
intended for welfare programs is 
ubiquitous; an easy way to judge 
an area’s level of corruption is 
to simply look at how run-down 
its 
affordable 
housing 
units 
are. Unfortunately, this broken 
system is at least partly due to 
how the government itself divides 
up responsibility: While the 
national government is primarily 
responsible for collecting taxes, 
provincial governments are in 
charge of most spending and 
receive relatively little oversight, 
allowing 
corruption 
of 
this 
variety to run rampant. 
Beyond numerous corruption 
scandals, 
the 
party’s 
ability 
to govern has also been called 

into question in recent years, 
especially as the legacy of 
apartheid fades and a new 
generation of South Africans 
reach voting age. Under Zuma, 
who served as President from 
2009 until 2018, unemployment 
rose 
dramatically, 
economic 
growth 
slowed 
and 
South 
Africa’s rankings in a bevy 
of 
social 
and 
governmental 
issues 
dropped 
precipitously. 
Furthermore, the ANC 
has 
continually struggled to come 
up with a plan for effectively 
bridging the massive wealth 
divide 
which 
still 
exists 
between Black and white South 
Africans (and attempts to do so 
have led to the popularization 
of a far-right party composed 
primarily of wealthy, white 
Afrikaners). 
Faced with these challenges, 
the party has been unable 
to create a cohesive identity 
and appeal to increasingly 
frustrated voters. After Zuma 
stepped down last year, the 
ANC’s current leader, Cyril 
Ramaphosa, 
was 
elected 
president. Although Ramaphosa 
is viewed as a breath of fresh 
air for the ANC, he is largely 
surrounded by corrupt figures 
who remain allied with Zuma, 
leading to the perception that 
the party lacks a clear direction. 
Even worse, Zuma is alleged to 
have political ammunition on 
many of these senior figures, 
which creates further gridlock 
and incentivizes them to do his 
bidding. Although Ramaphosa 
promised a number of economic 
reforms to try and revitalize the 
nation’s lagging economy, he 
has faced criticism from every 
direction: The left is frustrated 
his ideas are too favorable to 
business, while many businesses 
believe his reforms don’t go far 
enough. More important than 
any particular detail, Ramaphosa 
has frustrated everyone with 
his inability to get any of these 
reforms passed in the first place. 

Zack Blumberg can be reached at 

zblumber@umich.edu.

NOAH ENTE | COLUMN

Soleimani strike destroys the region’s true destabilizing force
T

his 
week, 
much 
has 
been made of the recent 
decision 
by 
President 
Trump to authorize an airstrike 
that killed the leader of the Islamic 
Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds 
Force branch, Qasem Soleimani. 
Social media has been flooded 
with content suggesting that this 
act will lead to a third world war, 
and the political world has come 
to a hotly contested debate about 
the implications of the killing. 
The event has certainly caused 
strong reactions, especially from 
high-ranking Iranian government 
officials, and is sure to dominate 
the headlines in coming weeks as 
tensions between the United States 
and Iran likely escalate.
Critics of the strike against 
Soleimani, including Speaker of 
the House Nancy Pelosi, advance at 
least one of two main points. First, 
that the President acted outside 
of his legal powers to facilitate 
this strike and should have sought 
the approval of Congress prior to 
it. They also assert that Trump’s 
decision will only serve to escalate 
violent conflict between the U.S. 
and Iran and was a serious mistake. 
Such criticisms, however, fall 
short of accurately assessing the 
legal and strategic realities of this 
military decision.
Since 
the 
development 
of 
military drones, this technology 
has 
played 
an 
increasingly 
significant 
role 
in 
military 
operations, particularly for the 
U.S. 
As 
various 
presidential 
administrations 
have 
engaged 
in drone operations, discourse 
surrounding the regulation of 
drone use through executive power 
has surfaced on multiple occasions, 
often 
following 
a 
significant 
American drone strike.
Yet no legislation has arisen to 
curtail a president’s right to use 
drones, or any other conventional 
means for American military 
operations, 
without 
consulting 
Congressional leaders. President 
Obama acknowledged in 2013 that 
despite his choice to alert Congress 
about his military decisions in 
Syria, he was not required to do so. 
His administration also attempted 
to expand the definition of the 
2001 Authorization for the Use of 
Military Force to apply the measure 
to U.S. actions in Afghanistan, Iraq 
and Syria.
Though the 1973 War Powers 
Resolution aimed to give Congress 
some power over military action 

by a president, the president still 
retains his constitutional status 
as Commander in Chief and has 
historically had the final say 
on similar and more extreme 
operations. Such instances include 
U.S. interventions in Kosovo and 
Libya, among others. Further, the 
Trump Administration did not 
send any armed forces into action 
through the decision to eliminate 
Qasem Soleimani, rendering the 
act as less, if at all, applicable in this 
case.

It is clear that outside of a 
desire to be kept informed of 
all strategic operations by the 
military, members of Congress 
and 
others 
who 
claim 
the 
decision 
was 
illegitimate 
or 
illegal due to Trump’s decision 
not to notify Congress cannot 
justify their claims. Precedent 
and legislation on such a topic 
prove that the decision can be 
legally justified. Yet the question 
remains, for some, whether the 
strike can be supported from a 
strategic standpoint. To answer 
this question, it is important to 
establish clarity about who Qasem 
Soleimani really was. 
Soleimani 
commanded 
the 
Iranian military’s Quds Force, 
which is responsible for carrying 
out the Islamic Republic’s agenda 
abroad. In his efforts to advance 
the malignant interests of Iran 
in the Middle East and around 
the 
world, 
Soleimani’s 
state-
sponsored terrorism led to the 
deaths of many civilians — the 
most recent example being an 
American defense contractor in 
Iraq in late December, according 
to the Department of Defense. 
The Department of Defense’s 
statement also noted the fact that 
Soleimani has been responsible 
for the deaths of many American 
and allied service members and 
had plans to cause more harm to 
Americans and U.S. interests. 

The 
operations 
Soleimani 
oversaw in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, 
among other conflict zones, caused 
years of instability in the region and 
put U.S. troops and allies like Israel 
at risk. His career and entire adult 
life were dedicated to sowing this 
chaos. The Trump Administration 
justifiably viewed it as important 
to prevent this man, infamous for 
his cunning and unique abilities to 
promote Iranian hegemony, from 
causing more destruction. After 
declaring Soleimani’s Quds Force, 
and the IRGC as a whole, a terrorist 
organization (Soleimani himself 
had already been designated as a 
terrorist in 2011), the president put 
an end to his malignant activities.
General 
Soleimani’s 
record 
speaks for itself. While those who 
opposed the strike that killed the 
Quds Force leader alleged that the 
attack will only destabilize the 
region, they fail to consider that it 
was Soleimani who was the cause of 
great instability in the Middle East 
for the past few decades. Though 
the Iranian regime is sure to attempt 
retaliation, the risk of all-out war is 
likely minimal, given Iran’s lack 
of resources or capabilities to fight 
the U.S. directly without incurring 
insurmountable costs. 
The question for the U.S. is 
whether this bold act will prove to 
be justified in the long run. Given the 
general’s record of wreaking havoc 
for American interests around the 
world, and the recognition of his 
developed strategies for doing so, 
his assassination will likely turn out 
to be a force for good in a dangerous 
part of the globe. U.S.-Iranian 
tensions would have continued 
regardless of any action against 
the military leader, and the attack 
sends a message to Tehran that 
Washington is willing to respond 
strongly when American lives are 
threatened. 
President 
Trump, 
Secretary 
of State Mike Pompeo and other 
officials were wise to carry out the 
strike, which required no use of 
American troops and was intended 
to save countless lives. Though 
history will record the outcome of 
this ongoing struggle, it is obvious 
that to leave Soleimani alive 
would have certainly endangered 
the lives of American and allied 
troops, officials and civilians. Such 
foresight on the part of the U.S. 
should be greatly applauded.

U.S.-Iranian tensions 

would have continued 

regardless of any 

action against the 

military leader

Noah Ente can be reached at 

noahente@umich.edu.

Educating on sexual 
assault in the very 
place where it 
originates would be 
especially effective 

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

KAAVYA RAMACHANDHRAN | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KAAVYAR@UMICH.EDU

