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