Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 14, 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

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

Term limits won’t solve the problem

T

erm limits are a solution 
frequently championed 
by both the left and 
right as a way to 
bring 
new 
people 
into office who offer 
new 
solutions 
to 
old problems. Term 
limits are an idea 
with 
widespread 
support: 
Tom 
Steyer, one of the 
billionaires running 
for the Democratic 
nomination, 
voiced 
his support for term 
limits. As did President Trump. 
These candidates aren’t alone, 
but a lot of support does not 
always guarantee good policy.
A term limit already exists 
for the presidency, but they are 
a somewhat recent invention: 
The 
22nd 
Amendment, 
which codified two terms for 
the presidency, was passed 
during 
the 
Truman 
years 
as a response to Franklin D. 
Roosevelt’s unprecedented four 
terms. Before Roosevelt, most 
presidents had stepped down 
in a show of respect to George 
Washington who had served 
only two terms. Presidential 
term limits have also not 
always been widely accepted. 
For example, in the late 1980s, 
President 
Ronald 
Reagan 
declared his support for a 
repeal of the 22nd Amendment 
in an interview with British TV 
personality David Frost. 
Reagan’s 
argument 
was 
that people ought to have the 
right to “vote for someone as 
often as they want to,” and he 
was correct — representative 
government works best when 
people can have their choice 
of leaders. Term limits trample 
over this right and choice and 
in doing so create a worse, more 
incompetent governing class, 
thus damaging the experience 
for all members of society. 
Usually, one reason people 
champion term limits is to 
address 
corruption. 
First, 
proponents 
argue 
that 

politicians limited by terms 
will be less likely to need 
campaign 
cash 
(because 
they run for fewer 
terms). 
Another 
argument 
is 
that 
term limits might be 
a way to address the 
“revolving door,” a 
phenomenon where 
formerly 
elected 
officials 
transition 
to lobbyists. 
Unfortunately, 
both of these ideas 
are 
incorrect 
as 
term-limited politicians spend 
less 
time 
with 
constituent 
services than their non-term 
limited 
contemporaries, 
but 
spend an equal amount of time 
campaigning and fundraising. 
Fewer terms make constituent 
services less important. If a 
politician only faces voters a few 
times, the incentive for strong 
constituent services decreases. 
With regards to closing the 
revolving door, Michigan is an 
excellent example of that door 
being open. In 1992, Michigan 
voters checked the box next to 
the smooth-talking, slicked-
back saxophone player Bill 
Clinton and also voted in favor 
of term limits in the Michigan 
Term 
Limits 
Amendment, 
Proposal B. The limits were 
three two-year terms for the 
House of Representatives and 
two four-year terms for the 
Senate. A few years ago, the 
Detroit Free Press investigated 
the results of this bill and 
they were pretty depressing. 
Of the almost 300 officials 
elected from 1992 to 2014, 71 
of them — nearly 25 percent — 
registered as lobbyists or ended 
up working as consultants or 
paid advocates. Having a rate 
this high calls into question 
the efficacy of term limits and 
questions the continuation of 
the blind promotion of term 
limits in other states and at the 
federal level. 
The 
most 
significant 
issue 
with 
term 
limits 

comes with what is done to 
institutional knowledge. Only 
by maintaining a long career 
can a politician build the skill 
set necessary to achieve great 
things and overcome obstacles. 
Lyndon Johnson became the 
Master of the Senate by virtue 
of 
his 
longtime 
career 
in 
Congress, but if he had been 
kicked from the House after six 
years, that never would have 
been. Indeed, in states with 
term-limited politicians, the 
only people who stay and thus 
have more power are lobbyists 
and partisan staff. Partisan 
staffers 
have 
a 
politician’s 
ear over the more apolitical, 
legislative staffers due to the 
fact that politicians are more 
familiar with the campaign 
crew and more likely to look 
to them for advice. Elected 
officials 
don’t 
have 
time 
to build relationships with 
the apolitical staff, and the 
governing process is worse 
when those staff are cut out 
of 
the 
picture. 
Lobbyists 
also 
gain 
power 
because 
they pick up institutional 
knowledge 
by 
virtue 
of 
being the only people who 
survive the churn. As a result, 
representatives 
effectively 
end up dependent on them for 
certain information and will 
vote accordingly. 
Finally, 
we 
have 
term 
limits in a highly relevant 
manner 
already: 
our 
elections. If the voters can 
decide to end a politician’s 
term by voting against them, 
why then should they not be 
able to give them another 
term provided there is no 
criminality or lawbreaking? 
Term limits are a bad idea 
but a snappy soundbite. They 
drain institutional knowledge, 
empower lobbyists and do 
nothing to prevent corruption. 
These drawbacks ought to be 
enough to say no to term limits. 

Anik Joshi can be reached at 

anikj@umich.edu.

RILEY DEHR | COLUMN

Apocalypse within the Anthropocene
M

y 
adoration 
of 
tapirs began fifteen 
years 
ago 
after 
studying them for a second 
grade research project. They’re 
odd pachyderms with miniature 
trunks, panda-like faces and pig-
like bodies that make them look 
like they belong more in a Dr. 
Seuss book than a real-life zoo. 
Few other animals match both 
the charm and uniqueness that 
tapirs embody. While seemingly 
plump and lazy animals, they 
are powerful swimmers that 
have to worry about anacondas 
as much as jaguars as they scour 
the rainforests for food. Adding 
to their troubles is the ever-
encroaching, overbearing hand 
of humanity. Logging operations 
have specifically pushed the 
Malayan Tapir, also known 
as the “Oreo” tapir for its coat 
pattern, to near extinction. 
As 
humans 
continue 
to 
expand their influence over 
the natural world and lead us 
into the sixth mass extinction, 
a future devoid of the world’s 
most intriguing animals, from 
tapirs to orangutans to cheetahs, 
seems 
likely. 
Scientists 
are 
debating whether the geologic 
age we live in should be renamed 
to the Anthropocene, or “the 
epoch of humans,” to reflect our 
vast, unquestionable power as a 
species. 
It is an honor not even 
afforded 
to 
the 
dinosaurs, 
with 
our 
history 
becoming 
inextricably 
linked 
to 
the 
planet’s on July 16, 1945, after 
the eruption of the first atomic 
bomb 
in 
Alamogordo, 
New 
Mexico. Radioactive materials 
settled onto the world’s rocks 
and thus into the geologic time 
frame, marking the beginning 
of humanity as a force of nature, 
with our impact as grand as any 
geologic or biological process 
on the planet. This power is 
something no other species has 
achieved and will be visible in 
the geologic record billions of 
years after Earth is far behind 
us. 
Perhaps the largest example 
of mankind’s godlike influence 
is climate change. Growing up 
in Nebraska, hurricanes and 
rising sea levels were hardly a 
concern of mine. The effects 
of climate change seemed too 
far removed from me — both 
geologically 
and 
temporally 
— to care all that much about. 
What I didn’t comprehend was 
the limitless myriad of effects 
a warming climate will have 
on the heartland of America as 
much as the coasts. Scientists 

continue to discover that climate 
change deals with the increase 
of ancient plagues as much as 
the rise of sea levels. 
On the frigid Siberian tundra 
of the Yamal Peninsula, the 
soil can be frozen solid as 
deep as 1,000 feet. Within this 
natural freezer lies the highly 
preserved corpses of incredible 
artifacts, from cave lions to 
wooly 
mammoths. 
Amongst 
these prehistoric creatures are 
millions of corpses of Santa’s 
pal, the reindeer, also known 
as caribou. These impressive 
animals can roam in massive 
herds far above the Arctic Circle 
where 
few 
people 
survive. 
Caribou are not only adorable 
but dangerous, as they are 
natural carriers of the bacteria 
anthrax. 

In the early 20th century, 
infectious 
bacterial 
diseases 
decimated millions of caribou 
throughout 
Siberia, 
causing 
their corpses to be preserved 
in the ever-frozen tundra. A 
record-breaking heatwave in 
2016 dethawed one of these 
diseased 
corpses 
and 
the 
sustained anthrax spores along 
with 
it. 
The 
hundred-year-
old “zombie” disease spread 
throughout a local herd before 
finding its way into the stomachs 
of local Nenet Siberians, who 
routinely consume the caribou. 
The bacterial disease spread 
rapidly, killing one child and 
forcing the Russian government to 
euthanize thousands of reindeer. 
Scientists worry that this is a 
prelude for what’s to come as the 
Arctic continues to heat up three 
times faster than the rest of the 
world — thawing the permafrost 
that contains millions of corpses, 
both animals and people. Human 
cemeteries, like the mass grave 
for Spanish Flu victims found in 
Alaska, may provide even more 
opportunities for ancient diseases 
to infect animals and people 
once again. While century-old 
epidemics may be one of the most 
bizarre effects of climate change, 
unfortunately, they are hardly the 
most concerning. 

Now 
entering 
its 
ninth 
year, the Syrian Civil War has 
shocked and split the world, 
particularly over the refugee 
crisis. While this is often seen 
as the international effect of the 
war, internal migration within 
Syria may have also been one 
of the triggers that began the 
conflict. From 2006 to 2009, 
the nation experienced its worst 
drought in 900 years. This, 
combined with disastrous water 
management, pushed 1.5 million 
people to flee as crops failed in 
the rural regions of the country, 
effectively 
furthering 
social 
strife. Scientists concluded that 
climate change likely caused, or 
at least worsened, the drought 
by changing weather patterns in 
the region.
The Syrian Civil War may 
be a foreshadowing for what 
much of the increasingly water-
scarce world may turn into in 
the near future. Massive cities 
like Cape Town have already 
run out of water in the past 
and other urban metropolises, 
from Melbourne to Mexico 
City, aren’t far behind as the 
Southern Hemisphere continues 
to heat up. More than 140 
million people may be forced to 
leave their homes due to climate 
change by 2050, according to the 
World Bank. With a changing 
climate being linked to human 
violence for the past 12,000 
years, “water wars” are likely 
to break out as people fight over 
increasingly unattainable and 
precious resources. 
From landing a man on 
the moon to creating a global 
society, 
climate 
change 
has 
far 
from 
outshone 
humanity’s successes in the 
Anthropocene. Even so, it’s 
posing an existential threat to 
the survival of human society 
— and so many other species — 
as we know it. As most nations 
fail to sufficiently respond 
to the warnings of climate 
professionals and scientists, it 
may be time to curb the talk of 
future sea level rises to the more 
immediate and eye-catching 
threats confronting humanity, 
ranging from ancient plagues 
to “water wars.” Continuing 
with the same old rhetoric 
and 
warnings 
that 
have 
failed to scare humans from 
changing their ways means 
continuing 
to 
waste 
the 
precious time needed to avoid 
the potentially apocalyptic 
future lurking on the horizon.

MIN SOO KIM | COLUMN

How is my English?

O

ne 
of 
my 
graduate 
student instructors last 
semester 
was 
Asian. 
Her English was not necessarily 
perfect, as she carried a little 
bit of an accent, but I never had 
trouble understanding what she 
was saying during discussions. 
Every now and then, she would 
get ahead of herself — as we all do 
— trying to answer questions. One 
day, from the back of the room, I 
heard someone say, “I have no idea 
what she’s saying.” I thought him 
speaking over her was disruptive, 
but decided not to bring it up at 
that moment and instead settled 
with giving him “a look.” The 
discussion ended some 20 minutes 
afterward, and as we were all 
getting ready to leave the room, I 
heard the same guy jokingly ask 
his friend if they should switch to 
a different section, where the GSI 
could speak better English.
I’m an international student 
from Korea who first came to the 
United States as a high school 
freshman. Trying to adjust to a 
completely 
new 
environment, 
I had one major concern: my 
English. 
I 
started 
learning 
English at the early age of five, 
thanks to my wise and perceptive 
parents. Somehow, I was able 
to speak the language without 
much accentuation, and as the 
years went by, I improved. At one 
point, I was asked by one of the 
teachers in my school, a native 
English speaker, if I was born in an 
English-speaking country. That 
felt good. For someone traveling 
all the way to the other side of the 
globe for the first time, by himself, 
as a 15-year-old, I was confident 
about my language skills and 
knew I wouldn’t have any problem 
communicating with the people I 
was going to meet. 
High 
school 
was 
great. 
Although it was one of the most 
stressful times in my life, it 
still remains one of my dearest 
memories. But there was one 
thing: I, who spoke almost 
perfect English, was accepted 
more as a friend and a student, 
when compared to my best friend 
who had a slight Korean accent. 
This dynamic made me think an 
American accent was an important 
distinction that made someone’s 
English more acceptable than 
another’s. I luckily never lost the 

confidence I carried with me to 
the U.S., a confidence I developed 
from the validation I felt by 
not having an accent. Speaking 
without an accent nearly became 
an innate quality of mine: I did not 
have to constantly remind myself 
that I was not a native speaker.
College is also great. By the 
time I got to Ann Arbor, I had 
already forgotten about the whole 
accent issue. And then I was 
unexpectedly reminded of the 
whole thing from that disruptive 
classmate.
Following that day, I was more 
self-conscious about my near-
perfect English. I had to think 
twice before I opened my mouth. 
I was afraid I might stumble 
through words or occasionally 
mess up the Ls and Rs, as they 
are sounds often fumbled by 
Koreans. I hesitated before saying 
the word “parallel.” An upcoming 
impromptu speech in my public 
speaking class suddenly felt like 
a nightmare. After spending a 
couple of days unnecessarily 
stressing myself out, I began to 
question the importance of an 
accent in speaking English. Is 
it really important or is it just 
another distinguishing factor that 
makes certain people sound better 
than others and nothing more? 
There was a brief experiment 
about the importance of an accent 
in English, conducted in Korea. 
Two groups of people, Koreans 
who only spoke limited English 
and native English speakers, 
listened to a speech delivered 
in English by Ban Ki-moon, the 
former Secretary-General of the 
United Nations. After the speech, 
both groups were asked to give 
remarks and assess the quality 
of the speech. Ban Ki-moon’s 
speech was targeted to a group of 
diplomats, so it was very eloquent 
and 
formal 
in 
manner 
and 
delivery, with an appropriate level 
of vocabulary used. The result of 
the study was interesting. Koreans 
who only spoke limited English 
generally thought the speech was 
a relatively poor one. Given Ban’s 
accent, they said it was hard for 
them to make out what he was 
saying. However, native English 
speakers responded by saying they 
did not have too much trouble 
understanding him and were 
very impressed by the quality 

of the speech in general. So, the 
experiment — at least to a certain 
degree — proved the accent is 
of minor concern in evaluating 
a speech. The experiment also 
proved that native speakers tend 
to focus more on the content, not 
the accent, as much as those who 
don’t speak the language.
The classmate who made those 
comments is an American and a 
native English speaker, I assume. 
What compelled him to make 
such comments? Of course, we 
must be wary when it comes to 
generalizations. In this case, I 
cannot assume that my classmate 
is like the native English speakers 
from the experiment who did not 
consider an accent to be of much 
importance. But the joke toward 
the end of the class made me think 
again. It made me reminisce about 
my high school experience and 
forced me to be conscious of my 
English for a while. What is clear, 
though, is that the comments 
made by my classmate were 
completely 
unnecessary. 
My 
classmate never switched to a 
different section after all. 
I don’t want to shed my 
classmate in a negative light per 
se. Nor am I writing this piece 
out of emotional reaction. The 
University is becoming more 
inclusive and diverse regarding 
students 
and 
faculty 
alike. 
There are a lot of international 
students like me, as well as 
professors and instructors from 
all around the world. Maybe 
some of them have such unique 
accents that they can’t go 
unnoticed. However, whether 
they have an accent shouldn’t be 
a central question or focal point. 
The question should always be 
how we can be considerate of 
one another and understand 
that we come from different 
backgrounds. 
As 
bright-
minded 
young 
adults, 
we 
should all work towards a 
more inclusive and welcoming 
environment. To do this, I 
politely ask that next time you 
see or talk to someone who 
has an accent, listen to what 
the person is saying, not to 
how the person sounds when 
they’re saying it. 

 

Min Soo Kim can be reached at 

kiminsoo@umich.edu.

COME TO OUR MASS MEETINGS!

Do you love to write? Take photos? Shoot videos? Code websites? Create 
graphics? Write engaging social media posts? Sell ads? The Michigan Daily is the 
place for you! 

Our meetings will be held January 15th, 16th and 21st at 7 p.m. in the Michigan 
Daily newsroom at 420 Maynard St. (next to the Student Activities Building). For 
more info on applying, check out http://join.michigandaily.us/

The largest 
example of 
mankind’s godlike 
influence is 
climate change.

ANIK
JOSHI

Riley Dehr can be reached at 

rdehr@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.

