Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 22, 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
ELI FRIEDMAN | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
O
n
Jan.
17,
The
Daily
published
an
opinion
column
entitled
“Language
in
a
politically
correct
2020.”
While
passionate,
the
piece’s underlying point was
fundamentally problematic.
The article begins with an
appeal to the First Amendment
of the Constitution, which
states that “Congress shall
make no law ... abridging
the freedom of speech.” I
absolutely agree that this is
a fundamental right, and the
author is correct that it has
been
largely
unrestricted
by law. This is where the
comparison
to
Orwell’s
“1984,” drawn in the following
paragraph, falters: Nobody is
jailed, tortured or killed in the
United States for politically
incorrect speech. How can
public pressure “work just
as well to shame people into
silence” when articles like
this one can be published?
How can preachers stand on
the Diag shouting hate speech
without fear of arrest? The
U.S. is freer than the author
of the article imagines, and
certainly freer than Orwell’s
dystopia (unless I’ve missed a
“1984”-style torture chamber
hidden beneath Angell Hall).
Herein lies the crux of the
issue: If one has the freedom
to be politically incorrect,
another
has
the
freedom
to call them out for it. This
concept is the nucleus of
political correctness; it is a
back-and-forth of free speech
exactly as guaranteed in the
First Amendment. Therefore, I
argue, political correctness is a
critical component of modern
society.
Ideas
will
never
develop if they are allowed
to go unchecked. And let’s
be clear: Those who espouse
political
incorrectness
do
not want their ideas checked.
Rather, they prefer to express
their
opinions
and
shield
themselves from criticism with
terms like “snowflake” or “PC
culture.”
Another central idea in the
piece is the claim that actions
matter more than words, and
therefore we should not judge
people based on those words.
What this misses is that words
often act as actions, whether or
not the speaker intends them to.
In sociology there is a concept
called “performative language,”
which describes expressions
that count as actions in and of
themselves. The idea is that
phrases like “I do” and “I quit”
can change social situations,
thereby functioning as actions.
Similarly,
the
language
we
use has real effects on others.
Depending
on
how
they’re
wielded, words can and often
do cause legitimate sadness,
fear or anger.
We can’t control how others
react to our words, but we can
control what we say. Actions
and words are both important.
They both reveal a person’s
character.
Finally, we arrive at the
intersection
of
political
correctness and creativity. The
author says that her friend’s
creative writing, in addition
to her own, was criticized for
being
politically
incorrect.
Furthermore, she argues that
forcing authors to write in a
politically correct fashion will
make all stories the same (“a
lot
of
princess-and-princess
fairytales”) and will make it
impossible to tell who actually
supports equality.
The advancement of creative
literature will not be stunted
by
political
correctness.
Countless
authors
writing
today have not been forced
to hand in their pens even in
this new era in which we find
ourselves.
Infinite
stories
can still be told. If the only
politically correct story one
can imagine is the “princess-
and-princess
fairytale,”
perhaps the fault lies not in
society but in oneself.
In
regard
to
this
contentious creative writing
class, I remind the original
author of the final line of
her piece: “The only way
to combat ignorance is to
let people speak freely and
convince them of their ill-
guided
conceptions.”
I
agree. This, as I’ve tried to
impress, is what political
correctness is. It is exactly
what the professor was trying
to do — let the students
write freely, notice an ill-
guided conception and try to
convince them of it. Don’t run
from political correctness,
let it guide debate and lead
to greater understanding for
both parties.
I see how this letter could
be
construed
as
an
arm
of
the
politically
correct
establishment trying to silence
the free-thinkers. It’s not that.
I’m just a student who read
another student’s column and
disagreed. Like good political
correctness, I do not want to
silence expression, but instead
push back on an idea that I see
as harmful. Can’t we agree that
is worthwhile?
Eli Friedman is a freshman in
the School of Literature, Science
& the Arts.
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
Donald Trump is a symptom of a larger problem
T
he
race
to
win
the
Democratic
presidential
nomination
continues,
with
the
large
selection
of
candidates
narrowing
ever so slowly. There are 14
candidates still vying for the
nomination, although the most
recent debate in Los Angeles,
California, only had seven. The
remaining politicians are all
trying their hardest to make
their presence known for the
upcoming Iowa caucus on Feb.
3. Throughout the campaign,
hot button issues have been
debated
and
discussed,
including
but
not
limited
to universal healthcare and
climate change. But the one
thing that unites most of them
is this — President Donald
Trump’s defeat in 2020.
Of
course,
this
is
a
no-brainer.
They
want
to
win the Oval Office, and
he’s the opponent. But there
is more substance to it than
just that. One of the biggest
concerns for the Democrats is
focusing too much on Trump
specifically. Beating Trump
in the upcoming election isn’t
enough to stop his malignant
brand
of
absolutism
and
demagoguery. In the sixth
Democratic
debate,
the
question of “Who can beat
Trump?” was discussed a lot.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Mn.,
succinctly
demonstrated
the fixation with her line
that the Democrats “should
have someone heading up
this ticket that has actually
won and been able to show
they can gather the support
(they)
talk
about
with
moderate Republicans and
independents, as well as a
fired-up Democratic base.”
She cited her Midwestern
ties to bolster her claim of
electability.
Former
Vice
President
Joe
Biden
can
be quoted in his campaign
announcement warning that
“if we give Donald Trump
eight years in the White
House, he will forever and
fundamentally
alter
the
character of this nation.” The
problem is that he already
has, and that none of the
problems that gave rise to
him in the first place are
being addressed. Trump is a
symptom of the country’s real
problems, and his shadow
will loom over us until we
tackle the source.
As painful as it is to look
back at the election cycle
in 2016, it’s unfortunately a
must in forming a strategy
not only for 2020, but for the
future presidencies to come.
But rather than looking at the
strengths of the opponent,
more focus needs to be put on
the Democratic inadequacy.
One of the biggest failures
for the Democrats was in
the Rust Belt, the group of
Midwestern states that have
taken the biggest losses from
globalization and automation.
The swing states of Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
turned red and gave candidate
Trump the electoral votes he
needed to win. The margin of
victory? Less than one percent
in all three states. His win
wasn’t a guarantee. The win
in Michigan can be chalked
up to decreased participation
in urban areas, and increased
participation in rural ones.
Trump was able to appeal to
the disgruntled workers of the
Midwest, allowing them to
channel their anger towards
things like immigration and
“the left” (despite neither of
those things really causing
their
problems).
Wayne
County voter turnout dropped
by 4 percent, while the rest
of the state’s turnout went
up by 3 percent. Winning
back these states is in reach
for the Democrats, but they
have to inspire voter turnout.
As former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton showed, it’s
hard to inspire the politically
diverse
constituency
of
potential Democratic voters
to turn out and vote, leading
to a 20-year low in 2016.
It’s hard to say exactly how
the loss could’ve been avoided,
but
Sen.
Bernie
Sanders,
I-Vt.,’s primary wins in the
Rust Belt could’ve been the
canary in the coal mine for the
loss in 2016. Sanders appealed
to voters by promising the
same things Trump did —
economic
security
in
an
increasingly unequal world. It
shows that it’s not impossible
to gain support for left-
leaning policies in the more
rural and industrial areas
of the country. Bernie is
again trying to appeal to the
Rust Belt with policies that
promise better conditions and
combat economic inequality.
The unfortunate reality of
the situation, which many of
the current Democrats fail to
recognize, lies in the growing
disparity between the haves
and have-nots. Demagogues
like Trump will utilize the
inherent
uncertainty
and
fear of job loss and declining
conditions to gain support,
and inevitably worsen the
conditions they said they
would combat.
The hypothetical situation
of a competent candidate
armed with the gaslighting
techniques the Republicans
learned over Trump’s first
term is a scary one. Lying
and fearmongering are now
common in the Republican
party. Trump’s brazen lies
to the American people to
inspire confidence would be
much more pernicious and
believable if they weren’t
undermined
by
his
less-
than-stellar
public
image.
Regardless
of
whether
Trump is removed or not, the
situation of a fearmongering
Republican
candidate
appears more and more likely.
As I’m sure most of us know,
President Donald Trump was
formally impeached by the
House of Representatives this
December, which leaves the
process in limbo with regard
to his trial for removal. It’s
unclear when the trial will
actually happen, as Senate
members
are
seemingly
reluctant to proceed with the
trial. Removal seems unlikely,
with a supermajority needed
with a reluctant GOP, but that
doesn’t mean it’s completely
implausible.
Whether
the
competent candidate be Vice
President
Mike
Pence
or
someone else in the future,
things will end poorly. What
comes after Trump is just as
important as what to do with
him now, and that foresight
is being lost in the whirlwind
that is the 2020 election.
Unless
we
want
another
fearmongering despot to rise
to power, we must recognize
the problem and fix it before
it’s too late.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.
It is easy to feel powerless
in
the
aftermath
of
new
sweeping
regulations
from
a
large
international
organization such as the IOC.
As the IOC is an independent
non-profit
organization,
there is no law, international
or otherwise, that prevents
the Committee from creating
and
maintaining
Rule
50.
But protest has been and will
always be about confronting
institutional
structures,
pushing
against
legal
and
social boundaries and refusing
to be silenced. We encourage
athletes who have the means
and the security to do so to
speak up for the issues they
believe in, and we encourage
the audience watching the
Olympics to be aware of the
risks these athletes are facing
in order to speak up.
First,
Rule
50
has
particularly
troublesome
implications. The new rule
appears as a small limitation
for athletes; after all, the
regulation
clarifies
that
protest or discourse of any
sort can happen away from the
medals ceremonies and the
athletic
events
themselves.
Athletes can still post on
their Instagrams or speak
openly at their post-event
press conferences. But the
presentation of medals at the
Olympics is far too large of
a cultural symbol to dismiss
Rule 50 as a small tweak to
existing athletic regulations.
The medals presentation
is an iconic athletic ceremony
that captures the attention
of the public. From Tommie
Smith
and
John
Carlos’s
Black
power
protest
at
the 1968 Olympics to Race
Imboden’s kneeling at the
2019 Pan American Games,
the medal podium has been
a crucial locus for protest
from passionate and talented
athletes.
Furthermore,
the
Olympics draw in massive
audiences to create a sort of
international
town
square
where people from all over the
world discuss their ideas and
values. As such, the Olympics
create an attractive platform
for protesters. When someone
receives a medal, the world
is watching, and it’s the most
advantageous
time
for
an
athlete to publically espouse
their beliefs. The Olympics
are
essentially
allowing
people to voice their opinions,
but only in the spaces where
these
opinions
would
not
garner attention.
The Olympics have always
been
political.
In
Ancient
Greece, they were a way for
political leaders of different
city-states
to
gather
and
have discussions on political
matters regularly. Pierre de
Coubertin, the founder of the
modern Olympics, once said
the games served not only the
purpose of uniting countries
through sports, but also of
bringing humanity together
and striving for a better world.
Based on the founding idea
and modern philosophy of
the games, the Olympics have
been one of the biggest stages
for athletes to protest based
on their beliefs. Despite the
IOC’s
ambiguously
worded
effort in Rule 50 to stay as
apolitical
as
possible,
the
Olympics have seen numerous
meaningful protests since the
first modern games in 1894.
In addition to the tradition
of prevalent protests during
the games, the IOC itself
has proved to the world time
and time again how it can be
blatantly political when it
helps its case. The IOC chose
to still invite Russian athletes
to the 2018 Olympics even
after the scandal of state-
sponsored
doping
schemes
during the Sochi Games in
2014. When South and North
Korea decided to field a unified
team for the Pyeongchang
Games in 2018, IOC president
Thomas Bach evidently saw an
opportunity to take a stance
in easing the tension in the
Korean peninsula and openly
welcomed
the
decision,
even stating the games were
“hopefully opening the door
to a bright future on the
Korean peninsula.” Given the
precedent of past protests and
the IOC being intentionally
political on other occasions,
it
seems
as
though
the
Committee
wants
to
take
control over what kind of
politics can be present during
the Olympics and ended up
banning
any
protests
for
which they could be seen
responsible.
The IOC’s new rule bans
free
expression.
Protests
function
as
a
way
for
individuals
or
groups
to
express concern toward the
status quo, so protestors are
bound to oppose the existing
regulations
by
nature.
Protests must be public to
serve the purpose of getting
the intended message across
to as many people as possible
and bringing about change.
Rule 50 does not completely
ban all protests. In that sense,
the new rule does not sound
terribly oppressive. However,
the rule limits where protests
can and cannot take place
and consequently bans free
expression as free expression
itself should have no limits.
Controlling where protests can
or cannot happen takes away
the public and deliberately
anti-establishment
aspects
of
such
demonstrations,
defeating their purpose.
Maybe it was the IOC’s
goal to ban the free expression
of athletes. Maybe the IOC
simply did not want to be
responsible for whatever the
athletes could say or do with
political
aim.
Either
way,
it is clear that the new rule
decided by the Committee is
poorly stated and misguided.
Athletes may protest during
the
games
this
summer
anyway. Some might even be
more motivated to speak up
for their cause because of the
new rule. As spectators, we
support the athletes and their
protests as long as they are
not
destructive.
Promoting
inclusivity and peace on one
of the biggest international
stages should be a noble cause,
FROM THE DAILY
The Olympic’s misguided crackdown on activism
A
s athletes compete at the highest caliber in Tokyo, Japan later this year, their
actions and words will be watched more closely than ever thanks to new
regulations from the Olympics’ organizing body. The International Olympic
Committee (IOC) has recently come under fire for issuing Rule 50, a ban on protests on
the field, on the podium, at Olympic ceremonies and in the Olympic Village. Athletes are
still allowed to express their views in press conferences, in team meetings and on social
media. This rule comes after heightened political statements and attention on world
sports stages from athletes like Colin Kaepernick, Feyisa Lilesa and Sarah Lee Wai-sze.
The IOC’s new
rule bans free
expression.
What comes
after Trump is
just as important
as what to do
with him now.
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.