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.