Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 4, 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
LEAH ADELMAN | COLUMN
Compostable cup meets reality
T
here is a great deal of
hypocrisy in throwing a
compostable cup into the
garbage. Despite being labeled
as
environmentally
friendly,
these products are often sent to
the landfill anyway. In Crisler
Center, many concessions are
sold
in
compostable
ware,
often accompanied by a utensil
in
an
eco-friendly
wrapper.
However, there is not a single
compost bin in Crisler Center.
A
common
misconception
is
that
compostable
items
can
biodegrade
in
landfills,
but
compostable
materials
must be placed in the correct
environment to actually break
down. So, what happens when
these compostable materials end
up in the landfill?
Without the oxygen provided
by a proper composting cycle,
items in a landfill will either
cease to break down at all or
break down anaerobically. In one
study published by the American
Chemical Society, the Polylactic
acid (PLA) — or cornstarch,
which is what most compostable
materials are made from —
released methane via anaerobic
decomposition. Another study
published
by
the
analytics
company
Elsevier,
however,
concluded the PLA did not break
down at all. At the bare minimum,
while these items may not release
methane, they are still effectively
relegated to being normal trash.
Regardless
of
whether
the
compostable material releases
methane, one thing is for certain:
It is not becoming compost.
When
compostable
items
do end up in the compost,
it is a completely different
story. At a composting facility,
care is taken in the aeration
of organic materials so they
properly decompose. Through a
specialized process, composting
creates a useful product for
agriculture and gardening while
diverting waste from the landfill.
Composting
has
exploded
in visibility with the rise of
certified compostable disposable
foodware
and
bags.
The
Biodegradable Products Institute
(BPI), the lead certifier in North
America, was founded in 1990
and today has certified over
10,000 products. It is common
to see the green BPI logo on the
disposable cups or bags sold
by Ann Arbor vendors and at
University of Michigan events.
Another
concern
for
compostable products is the
inclusion of a non-compostable
sticker on the product, which
prevents
them
from
being
composted.
Plastic
stickers
contaminate
the
compost,
resulting in a whole load of
organic materials being rejected
by
the
composting
facility.
Perhaps
the
company
did
not truly intend for the item
to be composted if it was so
carelessly converted into a non-
compostable item. The desire
for personalized branding can
be accommodated while staying
true to the product’s goal, which
is easily done as compostable
ware
companies
do
offer
customization.
In sustainability efforts, the
responsibility
is
frequently
placed on the individual to seek
out
environmentally-conscious
actions. While education and
awareness are crucial to a
functioning composting system,
there is a big problem with
companies that set consumers
up
for
failure.
Compostable
materials
are
too
often
introduced without even giving
the consumer the option to
dispose of them properly.
If a company’s management
genuinely
intends to
reduce
waste,
they
need
to
think
about where their compostable
items will end up. When a
restaurant offers compostable
products without the intent
for them to be composted, they
are greenwashing themselves
—
changing
appearances
to
look environmentally friendly
without making any true impact.
Companies
that
are
purchasing compostable ware are
still helping the environmental
cause in some way because
they are giving their money to a
green industry. While financially
supporting
a
sustainability-
focused industry is certainly
useful,
not
offering
their
products with the appropriate
care is taking away from the
accomplishments
of
other
companies that are. An example
is Hopcat, a Michigan restaurant
and bar chain that walks the
walk with a robust composting
system. They communicate with
local composting providers and
train employees on composting.
This successful system is far
more proactive than just offering
compostable products, although
the average consumer may not be
able to tell.
Food-service businesses should
not give out compostable ware
until they are prepared to offer
consumers a way to compost them.
It is irresponsible to make people
throw their compostable cups
into garbage bins as if there has
still been some environmental
success. Until the business is
ready to offer a compost bin, they
can instead provide disposables
that are made of post-consumer
products or other sustainably
sourced materials.
I commend businesses that
make an effort to be more
sustainable even when not done
to completion. The thought is
there, although the execution
is
ineffective
and
perhaps
misleading the public. Places
like
Crisler
Center
should
be held to a higher standard.
The University certainly has
the
knowledge
and
ability
to offer composting in the
locations where compostable
ware is available. If you find
yourself holding a cup with a
compostable logo on it, don’t
pat yourself on the back just yet.
It may not be plastic, but it’s as
good as trash if you don’t put it
in the right place.
Leah Adelman can be reached at
ladelman@umich.edu.
NEIL SHAH | COLUMN
The dangers of group identity politics on college campuses
I
recently read a piece by
essayist
Phillip
Lopate
titled “On the Necessity
of Turning Oneself into a
Character.” It offers advice
to
writers
about
building
themselves
into
characters
— rounding out the “I” in
the
narration
of
personal
narratives and creative non-
fiction. One passage stood out
for reasons entirely unrelated to
the craft of writing: “Ethnicity,
gender,
religion,
class,
geography, politics: These are
all
strong
determinants
in
the development of character.
Sometimes they can be made
too much of, as in the worst
sort of ‘identity politics,’ which
seeks to explain away all the
intangibles of a human being’s
destiny by this or that social
oppression.”
Lopate
suggests
that
an
element of building characters
in
stories
is
explicitly
recognizing
the
groups
to
which we belong, because to
some
extent,
these
groups
have shaped us. They are not
meaningless
associations.
They’re
worth
bringing
to
the forefront when we define
ourselves. But Lopate makes
the
poignant
observation
that,
beyond
what
applies
to
essay-writing
and
self-
questioning, “identity politics”
reduce the individual to these
group associations — known
quantities — and neuters the
qualities that make one an
individual.
Lopate’s
point,
while
tangential, applies to university
climates.
At
universities,
political
correctness
is
a
subtle but dominating force;
it’s a feature of many college
campuses around the nation.
Essayist John Taylor describes
it as a “New Fundamentalism”
in
a
New
York
Magazine
cover story: The radical left
students who live by politically
correct dogma take on extreme
measures to make sure other
students do the same. This
purportedly
advances
the
interests of oppressed groups.
Why? Because the zeitgeist
of
universities,
specifically
the humanities and even the
sciences, are informed by belief
systems that favor wealthy,
powerful
and
privileged
groups. Political correctness
(PC)
culture,
therefore,
corrects
this
inherent
imbalance by purging out of
the public sphere ideas that
are considered the status quo.
As reasoned as it might be to
simply believe a societal power
structure exists that prevents
equal opportunity, the most
extreme PC activists go to
embarrassing and even violent
ends to act on their strongly
held beliefs.
Political
correctness
is,
therefore,
an
ideological
engine that promotes group
identity politics on college
campuses. This is dangerous
for several reasons. It co-opts
meaningful
indicators
of
identity,
like
background,
ethnicity and politics, for use
in assigning value to each other
and each other’s opinions. This
creates an atmosphere where
opinions are judged not on
the merits of their idea, but
on how supposedly oppressed
the individual holding that
opinion is. Moreover, certain
opinions
can
be
deemed
invalid (by the left) for reasons
that are wholly beyond your
control. This harms campus
discourse because it enables
people
to
presume
your
opinions based on your group
identities. You may not agree
with any of the beliefs you’re
linked with but are judged for
them nonetheless. Moreover,
it encourages a silencing of
viewpoints that are misaligned
with
(read:
right-leaning)
prevailing campus ideas, so
only certain groups are worth
listening to.
This emphasis on group
identities
politics
makes
political correctness harmful
to free speech as well. Open
discourse is necessarily linked
to the sharing of ideas; it is
tied to an environment in
which ideas can be heard. PC
culture inhibits the formation
of
such
an
environment
because it labels people and
their ideas with unrelated
superlatives
like
“racist,”
“sexist” and “patriarchal” for
mostly arbitrary reasons. What
might have begun as a parsing
tool
for
identifying
ideas
with malintent has become
a mechanism for silencing
people who don’t agree with
PC culture.
These viewpoints are not
“racist” or “sexist”; they’re just
labeled as such, due to some
unclear association with these
labels, for the purposes of
silencing a competing opinion.
As such, the politically-correct
left has free reign to stymie
campus
discussions
and
debates that involve ideas they
don’t like. This fundamentally
defeats
the
purpose
of
universities,
as
Robert
Zimmer,
president
of
the
University of Chicago, recently
noted in a speech in Vienna:
“Students should be learning
from each other by working
through
and
discussing
different opinions ... But the
environment of demonization
and ostracism of those with
opposing views can choke the
intra-student discourse vital to
an education.”
This
type
of
closed-
mindedness, this unwillingness
to listen to other opinions,
is antithetical to the mission
of
a
university.
And
more
specifically, the intent to shut
down other opinions due to
their disagreement with far-
left culture inhibits free and
open
speech.
Free
speech,
however,
is
a
necessary
element
of
universities
as
it
fosters
an
intellectually
rigorous environment where
voices and ideas can be heard
and
scrutinized
properly.
Radical promoters of political
correctness prevent this ideal
culture from existing because
people are unjustly demeaned
for their divergent beliefs.
Indeed, this is a problem even
on the University of Michigan
campus. Only two years ago,
protests nearly derailed an
American Enterprise Institute-
sponsored
event
hosting
controversial political scientist
Charles Murray. Chants and
disruptions reigned during the
entirety of a peaceful event
about the politics underpinning
the 2016 election. PC culture is
a problem among faculty, too.
This past year, a non-profit free
speech advocacy group Speech
First filed a lawsuit against
the University on behalf of
students who were identified
by the U-M Bias Response
Team (BRT). The team was
designed to reprimand students
for offensive speech, but how
they carried out this intention
was called into question by
the students and Speech First,
resulting in a victory for the
conservative
activists
and
disbanding of the BRT.
The phenomenon of political
correctness
on
campuses
is
dangerous.
It
prevents
the understanding that our
identities are most definitely
informed by our backgrounds,
politics and unique ways of
thinking: This surely applies
to writing, but is more true
for individuals in real life.
It reduces the individual to
group identities; it reduces
divergent ideas to their group
associations. This brand of
identity
politics
devalues
diversity of viewpoint and
imposes
a
danger
to
free
discourse on campus because
individual
and
divergent
opinions
are
considered
fundamentally
invalid
due
to their departure from the
accepted norm. This culture
can only be corrected with a
robust commitment to free
and independent thinking, for
which a university atmosphere
is perfect.
Neil Shah can be reached at
neilsh@umich.edu.
EVAN STERN | COLUMN
How to really address climate change
I
n
the
last
few
years,
whether it be on our
campus
or
halfway
across the world, our anxiety
around climate change has
hit
an
unprecedented
level
— dominating conversations,
protests
and
activism
on
practically every continent.
Here in Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan students and the
greater
Washtenaw
County
community have made their
voices heard that they want real
action on the climate crisis. In
September 2019, thousands of
community
members
joined
the
large-scale
Washtenaw
County
Climate
Strike
and
demanded immediate change.
Beyond this, student activists
have overwhelmingly pushed
back against the University’s
commitment
to
investing
in fossil fuels, climaxing in
the arrest of 10 protesters
by campus police in March.
Many of my colleagues at The
Michigan Daily have clearly
echoed these opinions, stressing
how important it is that society
adopts aggressive plans like
the Green New Deal without
hesitation.
However, travel a few miles
outside Ann Arbor city limits
and you’ll get a completely
different picture of Washtenaw
County’s position on climate
change. According to county
election records, while the Ann
Arbor and Ypsilanti areas —
predominantly urban centers —
have unsurprisingly supported
the Democratic agenda, the
same isn’t true in other parts
of the county. In fact, in the
November 2016 election, many
of the Washtenaw townships
unequivocally
affirmed
their
support for President Donald
Trump, who has done little to
fight the climate crisis, calling it
a Chinese hoax. Election results
show that a high number of
precincts supported Trump by
over 50 percent, while some
areas voted for him by almost 65
percent. Therefore, while many
of the opinions expressed here on
our campus are valid, they clearly
don’t represent the perspectives
of many Washtenaw residents
or the areas surrounding our
university.
This means something not
only for Washtenaw County —
but for the entire climate fight.
The same trend is occurring
across the entire country, as
well as on the international
stage. The problem is that
climate change has for years
remained an issue on the left.
Many people in Ann Arbor think
we need to support legislation
like the Green New Deal and
throw away all fossil fuels, but
you’ll hear exactly the opposite
from people living a short drive
away. All across the country
and perhaps the world, liberals
talk a lot about climate change
while
conservatives
remain
relatively silent. The crisis has
gained significant attention —
there’s no doubt about that —
but this recognition is unevenly
distributed across society.
I support many Republican
positions on issues, but I fear
the inherent dangers of climate
change. Many people might
expect me to reject climate
change entirely because of my
political views, but that’s not
true. It’s not a Chinese hoax,
but a real disaster that needs
a real solution. Sooner rather
than later, our society will have
to confront the effects of global
warming and rising sea levels.
However,
I,
along
with
many other more conservative
and
moderate
citizens,
am
unable to engage in the climate
conversation because it has
become far too extreme. (I
would
even
suggest
that
Trump’s
ability
to
address
the crisis is impaired by this
phenomenon that so many have
experienced.) It is easy to feel
alienated and excluded in this
divisive conversation, one where
few
alternative
viewpoints
are readily welcomed. Real
change could occur, if only the
leaders
of
the
conversation
could become leaders for all
and invite everybody to work
toward a solution. A movement
cannot ignore the views of half
of the constituency; it has to
learn to adapt, encompassing
what everybody believes if true
progress is to occur.
There have been numerous
legislative attempts in the past
to mitigate climate change and
global warming on a smaller
scale, but few, if any, have made
notable advancements for the
cause. More recently, some
members of Congress, including
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., have
even advocated for alternatives
to the Green New Deal, like
the “Green Real Deal.” The
Green Real Deal “recognizes
that a national commitment
to
innovation,
competitive
markets, and the deployment of
advanced energy technologies
will help the United States as the
global leader in clean energy,”
according to the Gaetz’s official
website.
While
Democrats
predictably didn’t express much
approval for the proposal, these
types of bills — which are far
more practical and politically
feasible — are precisely the kind
we need to pass if we want to
save our planet.
The truth is that proposals
like the Green New Deal, along
with a cascade of other extreme
climate legislation, are simply
not capable of solving this
crisis because they’re far too
dramatic.
We shouldn’t be talking
about
complex
measures
that completely change our
way of life, something that
makes
these
proposals
so
unattractive in the first place.
We need to find ways to draft
legislation that respects the
needs of ordinary, hard-working
Americans, our current way of
life and the economy. We need to
take small but significant steps
that can gradually move our
planet toward the ideal state
that so many climate advocates
envision.
The
progress
we
will
experience by acting in this
manner may not be exactly
what current activists are
hoping for, but it will surely be
a significant leap from what’s
being
accomplished
now.
Ultimately, until society can
effectively part ways with the
divisive, unrealistic solutions
that have become so common
in the climate conversation,
real improvement will be
near impossible to reach.
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
The politically-
correct left has
free reign to
stymie campus
discussion
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.