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.