7-Opinion
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
A
s members of the faculty at
the University of Michigan,
we are deeply troubled by
the administration’s response to the
ongoing strike led by many of our
graduate students.
The administration has been quick
to characterize the strike as “illegal.”
But so were many of the strikes that
make up the history of the labor
movement worldwide. Strikes are by
definition meant to disrupt business
as usual.
The
Graduate
Employees
Organization has made several
important demands with regard to
the administration’s reopening of the
campus in the midst of the COVID-
19 pandemic. GEO has persistently
raised concerns about the lack or
inconsistency of testing, tracing,
quarantine,
distancing,
masking
and other actions that would help
improve safety and reduce infection
spread on campus and in the
surrounding community.
GEO’s insistence on a universal,
unqualified right to work remotely is
in the best interest of the broader U-M
community. While the University has
consistently responded that they are
“not aware” of any coercion to teach
in-person or in a hybrid format, they
have also refused to institute such a
guarantee as university policy.
The health and safety of the
community are also at the heart of
GEO’s demands regarding policing.
In recognition of the persistence
of police violence and surveillance,
which
disproportionately
impact
the communities of individuals that
are Black, Indigenous and people
of color, GEO has called for the
redirecting of 50% of the funding
allocated to the Division of Public
Safety and Security to community-
based justice initiatives. They have
also asked that the University cut
ties with the Ann Arbor Police
Department and with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. As the
#BBUM campaign has powerfully
documented the “unique experiences
of being black at Michigan” since 2013,
Black students regularly experience
racism on the part of both campus and
city police. We must also remember
the 2014 killing of Aura Rosser by Ann
Arbor police, for which the officer
responsible was promoted and the
then-chief of AAPD was later hired
by the University as the Director of
Housing Security for DPSS.
GEO’s demands for reallocating
funding from DPSS and cutting
ties from AAPD are particularly
pertinent in light of the University’s
forming of student ambassador
teams, which effectively recruit
and employ students to become
extensions of the campus police and
surveil their peers. The money spent
on this programming could easily be
used for COVID-19 testing, personal
protective equipment or remote
learning — any number of things that
would make our campus safer for all.
Most recently, residential advisers
at the University have initiated a work
stoppage to protest their working
conditions, as have dining hall
workers. Like the members of GEO,
R.A.s used the official channels to
voice their concerns before taking this
measure. As non-unionized student
employees, many of whom come from
working-class families, they take a
considerable risk in their collective
action. Like our striking graduate
students, they have determined that
the risks to themselves and to the
campus community posed by the
University’s reopening plan outweigh
the risks of going on strike.
We are deeply disappointed that,
while so many of the University’s
constituents
bravely
risk
their
livelihoods to raise grave concerns
about public health and safety on
campus, the administration has used
procedures and technicalities to
silence, delegitimize or ignore their
concerns. Some of the University’s
language — along with its use of
non-disparagement clauses — carry
an implicit threat of retaliation. We
are gravely concerned about the
language of intimidation deployed
in the University’s response to GEO
and in its communication with
faculty about the strike. We believe
that those striking and protesting do
so for the health and safety of both
the University and surrounding
community, envisioning a more
robust and just culture of care that
all members of our campus and
neighboring communities deserve.
The University’s official response
and attitude to the demands and
concerns raised by GEO echo
attempts by the administration
to undermine faculty governance
and obfuscate the communications
of the faculty during COVID-19
by ignoring or dismissing faculty
petitions and protests over the
campus reopening plan.
We express here a concerted
show of faculty solidarity with GEO,
our graduate students and R.A.s, and
demand a more forceful and concrete
condemnation by the administration
of the assaults to which people of
color and immigrants are subjected
on a daily basis.
We call for a more serious
engagement by the University in
hearing and responding to GEO’s
important and timely demands. To
sign the letter, please complete this
form.
Several faculty members
co-authored this op-ed collaboratively
and can be reached at concerned@
umich.edu. A growing list of
signatures, which includes the
authors and indicates support of this
article and for GEO, can be found
online. At the time of publication, the
number of signatories was 436.
UNIVERSITY FACULTY | OP-ED
Faculty letter supporting GEO strike
M
y morning routine has
been the same for years.
I wake up to the blaring
sound of my alarm, and as soon as
I touch my phone to turn it off, I
have an instinctual reaction to open
up Instagram and scroll through
my feed. I am normally greeted
with genuine pictures of friends,
aesthetically pleasing nature photos
from someone’s most recent vacation
or a funny meme that offers a good
morning laugh. However, Instagram
has looked much different in the past
few months.
Between the COVID-19 pandemic
and social justice movements, most
people I follow have turned away
from sharing light-hearted, personal
material and have shifted to using
their platform as a tool to educate
their followers on societal issues
and raise awareness. The beauty
of social media is that it’s not just a
way for users to keep their followers
updated on themselves, but rather a
way to connect and share valuable
information across the globe, which is
crucial during a divisive time like this.
September is here, which means
that it’s time for most college students
to head back to campus. As students
make this transition, the educational
posts and stories remain present,
but personal posts are starting to
trickle in once again. The latter is
not problematic alone; however, if
a social media user’s personal life
starts to contradict what their profile
preaches — for example, if they
constantly post about the importance
of social distancing but fail to distance
themselves — then it becomes an issue.
Why preach what you don’t practice?
Using social media as a tool to
educate and spread awareness is more
important now than ever. We are in
the midst of a transformative time
period in terms of our approach to
public health and social justice, such
as the Black Lives Matter movement.
I applaud those who take time to find
pertinent information and share it
with their friends. Yet, I question
those who do so, then explicitly — or
implicitly — prove that they are not
holding themselves up to the standard
they preach. Instead, they do this to
maintain a social media image that
showcases passionate, high-ground
activism. It has become “trendy” to
be a social media activist. This needs
to end.
But
the
more
education,
information and awareness the better,
regardless of the person posting it,
right? The issue is not with the material
itself, but rather the standard these
social media users are promoting.
By contradicting your own activism
by clearly not following the action
items you promote, you are showing
your followers that the activism you
are engaging with is indeed not that
serious. It delegitimizes the work
of real activists who put significant
thought into their activism and then
proceed to live a lifestyle that supports
what they preach.
There is a fine middle ground that
people our age often fail to realize.
It is not a black and white situation;
just because an Instagram user
does not make daily posts about
the importance of wearing a mask
does not mean that they are denying
the pandemic’s severity. If you are
someone who understands the
severity of the pandemic but knows
that there’s a likelihood that you will
be in a large group setting (with a
chance of posting it to your page),
then you should not preach against
large group settings. By contradicting
your own activism, you are telling
your followers that what you are
preaching is only important enough
to make stories or posts about, but not
important enough to follow through
in supporting.
I understand why people in our
generation often engage in this type
of performative activism, and I do not
believe these people are inherently
bad. When social justice movements
become prominent — especially as
prominent as the Black Lives Matter
movement, which may be the largest
movement in U.S. history according
to the New York Times — people
begin to support the cause even if they
were not passionate or knowledgable
about the movement before. Some of
these people become truly passionate
supporters,
while
others
simply
become passionate posters on their
social media accounts.
The latter type of activism stems
from white guilt — people constantly
posting information in support of the
movement to prove to their followers
that they, too, are passionate about
supporting and protecting Black lives.
It’s for mere self-validation rather than
the intention to generate change and
true impact. When everyone does
this, the information shared becomes
meaningless and fails to help the cause.
We are students at the University
of Michigan. If we truly care about
a cause, then we must work to do
whatever we can to support it. As
college students, we are capable of doing
more to support a cause than simply
raising awareness on social media and
then failing to personally uphold what
we exhort onto others. Oftentimes, we
find ourselves under a lot of pressure
to conform, especially in a society that
is so interconnected. But just because
someone else is using their social media
platform to educate and exhort does
not mean that you are required to do
the same in order to be perceived as a
good person. Keep yourself accountable
and stay informed. Just remember to
practice what you preach.
SPIROS KASS | COLUMNIST
Practice what you preach
Spiros Kass can be reached at
spikass@umich.edu.
Michael Bagazinski/Daily
A
s reported by The Michigan
Daily in January of this
year, Witness for Peace, an
anti-Israel hate group, has spent
the past 16 years of Saturday
mornings protesting outside
Beth Israel Congregation in
Ann Arbor. A congregant of
the synagogue motioned to
sue the group at the end of
2019. On Aug. 19, 2020, the
ruling was justified by the First
Amendment and the lawsuit
was dismissed by U.S. District
Judge Victoria Roberts.
As a young Jewish adult,
I am often confronted with
the question of whether anti-
Israel beliefs equate to anti-
Semitism. Many of my Jewish
peers accuse people who are
simply critical of the Israeli
government’s actions as being
anti-Semitic, though in my
mind, these aren’t equivalent.
On the other hand, I have had
non-Jewish
peers
assume
my
identity
automatically
constitutes
support
of
the
Israeli government’s actions,
a conflation which I perceive
as anti-Semitic. It is possible
to defend the existence of a
Jewish state while criticizing
its politics and to advocate for
Jewish people while advocating
against the Israeli government.
Judaism exists independently
of
the
state
of
Israel,
so
legitimate disapproval of the
Israeli government should not
include ridicule of the Jewish
people.
However,
legitimate
disapproval
of
Israel’s
government does not describe
what
is
expressed
in
the
protests outside Beth Israel
Congregation. According to the
Anti-Defamation League, an
organization that aims to “stop
the defamation of the Jewish
people and to secure justice and
fair treatment to all,” criticism
of Israel becomes anti-Semitic
when the actions of Israel are
attributed to the Jewish people,
when “Israel is denied the right
to exist as a Jewish state and
equal member of the global
community” or when known
anti-Semitic “symbols, images
or theories are used” to defend
anti-Israel ideologies.
Signs
displayed
by
WFP
protestors
meet
all
three
criteria, making their anti-
Israel
protests
undoubtedly
anti-Semitic.
Their
slogans
included
“Resist
Jewish
Power” and “Jewish Power
Corrupts,”
implying
that
the
corruption
within
the
Israeli government is a direct
result of the Jewish faith of
government
officials,
even
though Israel is not governed
by Jewish law. Furthermore,
these phrases allude to the
widespread conspiracies that
claim Jewish people have “all
the power,” which are anti-
Semitic by nature. Another
sign held during WFP protests
demands that people “boycott
Israel.”
In
promoting
the
shunning of Israel as a whole,
WFP denies its equivalence to
other members of the global
community.
Although
it
is
possible to denounce Israel
without
being
anti-Semitic,
WFP does not use such tactics
in their protests.
The WFP conducts protests
at the same time each week,
specifically
during
Jewish
holidays, which adds to its
blatantly anti-Semitic message.
Since 2003, members of the
group
have
stood
outside
Beth
Israel
Congregation,
holding
signs
with
anti-
Semitic language, on Saturday
mornings, when many Jews
come
for
Shabbat
services.
Chabad, among the largest
Jewish religious organizations
globally, describes Shabbat as
“the centerpiece of Jewish life.”
It is widely known as a day of
rest. It is said in the Torah,
the holy scripture in Judaism,
that G-d created the world
in six days and rested on the
seventh, blessing the day and
declaring it holy. This seventh
day is what we now know as
Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath.
The WFP intentionally protests
outside the synagogue during
congregants’
celebration
of
Shabbat, ultimately tarnishing
the holiness of the day and
denying
congregants
the
opportunity to observe the
day of rest. The fulfillment
of traditions in the Jewish
faith has no correlation to the
questionable actions of the
Israeli
government,
so
the
WFP’s interruption of one to
protest the other is sacrilegious
and unjustifiable.
There is no issue to be had
with a protest of the Israeli
government’s actions; many can
agree that the state’s politics
are deeply flawed. However, the
defamation of the Jewish people
as evidence against Israel is not
an ethical way to approach such
concerns. I can confirm that we,
as a Jewish people, have not been
asked by Israeli government
officials for our input regarding
their actions, so the protest of
the Jewish people as a means
to protest the state of Israel is
futile. Instead of perpetuating
debunked conspiracies about
Jewish people while disrupting
their religious practice, the
WFP should lobby Michigan’s
representatives in the United
States Congress and encourage
them to decrease American
funding to Israel. Not only
would these efforts be better
received by the public, but they
would also be more effective
in bringing about the tangible
change they wish to see.
The lawsuit against the WFP
was dismissed, as the U.S.
Constitution upholds freedom of
speech in the First Amendment.
However, it is important to
remember that the legality of
an action does not speak to its
integrity or morality. It is okay
ILANA MERMELSTEIN | COLUMNIST
When criticism of Israel becomes anti-Semitism
Ilana Mermelstein can be reached
at imerm@umich.edu.
ZOE ZHANG | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT ZOEZHANG@UMICH.EDU
Wednesday, September 16, 2020 — 10