100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 30, 2020 - Image 10

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

7-Opinion

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

I

f I asked you what are cars
for, there are a few answers I
might expect you to give me.

Cars expand our horizons by letting
us travel farther. They save time by
letting us travel faster. Or, maybe you
would simply say that we need cars:
We need them to get to our places of
work, to get to the store and buy food,
to visit our families — in short, to live
our lives.

If cars really are such a

fundamental
component
of

our daily lives, perhaps it is
better to ask why we need
them so badly in the first place.
Because, despite their ubiquity
in
American
society,
cars

inflict too much misery, death
and destruction on us and our
world to justify any of those
benefits.

The easiest way to examine

the toll the automobile has taken
on humanity is by looking at the
staggering number of people killed
by vehicles. Over the last few
decades, the number of accidents
per year in the United States has held
remarkably steady, and although the
actual number of deaths has declined
slightly, it remains concerningly
high. In 2018, the U.S. Department

of Transportation reported 36,650
total fatalities in 33,654 fatal
vehicle accidents. In the 24 years
from 1994 to 2018, a total of 973,698
Americans died in car crashes.

These statistics are indisputably

horrifying, but what might not

seem as obvious is that cars

themselves aren’t actually at fault.
After all, cars are operated by
people and people are prone to
error. Car accident deaths can be

mitigated by improving safety

features and traffic laws — and
in fact, much of the decline in
deaths shown in the Department
of Transportation statistics can
likely be attributed to these
improvements. No matter how
much seatbelt or airbag technology
improves, these features can only
attempt to offset the inherent
danger of letting millions of people
zip around in two-ton missiles as
a matter of daily routine. A future
in which vehicle safety features
prevent even close to 100% of
deaths is a long way off.

Even if the threat of accidents

were somehow entirely eliminated
— maybe through self-driving
technology — cars present other
dangers to humanity and the
environment. The Environmental
Protection
Agency
estimates

transportation accounted for 28%
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in
2018, and 82% of those emissions were
made by cars and trucks. Though it’s

much harder to precisely assess the
damage these emissions have caused,
both to people’s respiratory health
and the environment, this damage is
indisputable.

In a world where fatal pile ups

on the highway are reported on the
nightly news with the same accepting
nonchalance as the day’s weather, car
crashes are old news. Besides, isn’t it
a simple enough thing to let advances
in safety technology and renewable
energy take their course and solve
these problems in their own time?
Maybe so. But if it were possible to
drastically reduce or even eliminate
our reliance on cars, these problems
would never have to be solved,
because they wouldn’t exist. And it is
possible to do just that.

It certainly wouldn’t be easy,

but dispensing the need for mass
ownership and use of automobiles
via radical urban redesign would
recondition all of the problems I have
already mentioned, as well as several
that cannot be solved simply by
making cars better. For example, in
an interview with WSP, Kit Chiu, an
Advanced Mobility Systems Planner,
stated, “If we want to turn the
current increase in active transport
usage
into
sustained
change,

planners, and all those who bring
about change within cities, will need
to consider how to continue to make
active transport and micromobility
options
workable
under
these

conditions, not just for the most

experienced users but for all who
want to use them. This requires
thinking about the design of the
actual infrastructure, the design of
the surrounding environment, the
planning of amenities—including
rest stops, lighting, and bike-fixing
stations—and the way we operate
and maintain our infrastructure,
such as winter snow removal.” The
infrastructural necessities essential
for overhauling dependency on
personal vehicles are not quick
fixes but rather demand decades
of progress in hopes of addressing
the problems caused by this
dependency.

To phase out cars, all travel

destinations that cannot be reached
through
some
combination
of

public transportation (trains, buses,
airplanes, etc.) or foot travel should
also be redesigned or reconfigured.
Places that are remote, single-use
developments or destinations that
wouldn’t exist in the first place
without cars to provide access to
them could not exist in a carless
society. Even more, getting rid of
them would be beneficial in multiple
facets, as strip malls tend to be
displeasing to the eye and suburbs
are at best ecologically burdensome
and spatially inefficient.

Evan Dempsey can be reached at

evangd@umich.edu.

EVAN DEMPSEY | COLUMNIST

Vroom, zoom, doom

Spiros Kass can be reached at

spikass@umich.edu.

HARLEEN KAUR | OP-ED



Design courtesy of Caitlin Martens

The University’s tools will not dismantle the University

T

he United States prides
itself
on
maintaining

a
strict
separation
of

church
and
state,
denouncing

the
entanglement
of
religion

and government and permitting
citizens to practice any religion
of their choice. However, aside
from the occasional court decision
prohibiting prayer in a public
school, evidence suggests this “strict
separation” is more of a hanging
sheet: a barrier, but not one that fully
prevents mingling between sides.
Though civics classes may have
informed you otherwise, the line
between government and religious
involvement is often blurred. The
historical use of religious beliefs to
ridicule candidates for government
office, as well as the strong
correlation
between
religious

beliefs and voter behavior in the
U.S.,, make it hard to believe church
and state are truly separate.

Thomas Jefferson and James

Madison originated the concept
of a separation of church and state
in the government of the United
States. In his letter to the Danbury
Baptist Association in Connecticut,
Jefferson called religion a “matter
which lies solely between Man &
his God,” adding that there should
be a “wall of separation between
Church & State” in the U.S.
government. The establishment
clause of the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution serves
as the manifestation of this idea.
By including it among the first
additions
to
the
Constitution,

Jefferson and Madison indicated
the importance of the separation
of church and state in the U.S.
government, yet it seems not to be
upheld in the modern day.

After
Theodore
Roosevelt

opted not to run for another term
as
president,
the
Republicans

nominated
William
Howard

Taft as the party’s candidate for
the position in 1908. Democrats
began attacking Taft, citing his
religious
beliefs
as
evidence

against his ability to serve as
President, despite the supposed
governmental
separation
of

church and state. Taft identified
as a Catholic and a Unitarian,
which ruffled the feathers of many
Protestants, who felt these beliefs
meant Taft did not recognize
Christ’s divinity and would act
with hostility toward Protestants
in the country. In spite of these
criticisms, Taft won the election,
with remarks from Roosevelt.
He deemed it outrageous “even
to agitate such a question as a
man’s religious convictions for the
purpose of influencing a political
election,” warning Americans of
the dangers of allowing religion to
influence the government.

Did
Americans
heed
his

warning, though? No — the
religious
views
of
candidates

continued to serve as evidence for
or against their abilities to lead.
Al Smith, presidential candidate
in the 1928 election, received
criticism during his campaign
from William Allen White, editor
of the Emporia Gazette at the time,
who labeled Smith as a threat to
“the whole Puritan civilization
which (had) built a sturdy, orderly
nation” in accordance with his
Catholicism.

In the 2008 and 2012 Republican

primaries, the candidates “who
most
explicitly
appealed
to

religious voters” were preferred
by Republicans who reported
the most frequent attendance at
religious services, and there was
a direct relationship between the
likelihood of supporting these
candidates and the frequency of
attendance at religious services.
Even now, approximately half

of Americans claim that the
possession of strong religious
beliefs is a factor of reasonable
importance
when
considering

political candidates.

The integration of church and

state will not be put on pause for the
2020 presidential election. Despite
most Americans viewing President
Donald Trump as the least religious
of the 2016 presidential candidates,
the majority of white Protestants,
who make up a sizable portion of
the American population, now
express support for his presidency
and reelection. Trump has made a
considerable effort to appeal to the
Protestant population throughout
his term, notably taking a photo with
a Bible in front of St. John’s Church
in Washington, D.C. this June to
publicize his supposed commitment
to Christianity.

Trump continued to vocalize

his
newfound
dedication
to

Christianity by diminishing the
religious beliefs of presidential
candidate Joe Biden. “He’s against
God,” Trump declared, adding that
Biden’s presidency would allow for
“no religion” and would “hurt God.”
Biden is openly Catholic, like past
political leaders William Taft and
Al Smith, so these remarks bear a
striking resemblance to those made
by past critics of such leaders. Trump
capitalizes on the historical prejudice
toward Catholics in the U.S. in order
to obtain and maintain the support
of Protestants, who make up a large
proportion of American voters. He
takes religion, what Jefferson called
a “matter which lies solely between
Man & his God,” and exploits it for
political gain.

The separation of church and state, or lack thereof

ILANA MERMELSTEIN | COLUMNIST



If the structure does not permit
dialogue the structure must be
changed.” — Paulo Freire

Today, for the first time, I picked

up my favorite, well-worn navy
Michigan shirt, took one look at it,
and put it back on the shelf. It’s one of
those shirts that’s a favorite because
it’s simple — across the chest, it has
“Michigan” written in maize block
letters that are starting to crack from
so many washes, and there’s a hole
slowly spreading along the seam in
the right armpit. I still remember
when it had its original rough
texture, as most of the standard
Meijer shirts do. I wore it proudly on
my high school graduation day at my
high school, honored to show off the
new place I’d be calling home.

My four years in Ann Arbor

taught me more about myself than I
could have expected. While formal
education challenged me in the
classroom, my real learning came
through
student
organizations

and student activism. I remember
bearing witness to the Coalition for
Tuition Equality, protests spring
of my sophomore year. I watched
undocumented students and those
fighting in solidarity protesting at

the Michigan Union intersection
until
eight
were
arrested
for

obstructing traffic. That fall, shortly
after tuition equality was passed by
the University’s Board of Regents,
the Black Student Union demanded
a
reckoning
with
the
implicit

and explicit ways the University
continued to protect anti-Black
behavior on campus. Covering the
posting wall with black chalkboard
paper overnight until #BBUM (Being
Black at the University of Michigan)
turned into a viral Twitter campaign.

Two years later, we witnessed

the Islamophobia and xenophobia
present in many divisions of the
University as the Center for Campus
Involvement planned, and then
canceled, and then rescheduled a
screening of American Sniper for
UMix, despite the reports that the
film’s release had fueled a rise in
violence against Muslims across the
U.S. Even then, President Schlissel’s
response was underwhelming; he
asked us to acknowledge and value
“underlying values (that) are at odds”
while “work(ing) through them to
achieve a balance that will allow
us to grow as individuals and as an
institution of higher learning.”

As an exhausted senior one

month away from graduation, I
had already learned from countless
meetings
with
the
University

administration that promises were
often empty, and meetings were
simply for the appearance of good
faith. Still, below the resentment
that had grown like a hard skin
over my pre-college 18-year-old
self’s pride, there was still an
underlying feeling of love for and
faith in the University community,
not the administration, to find
our path forward as we worked
through the burdens of pursuing
higher education in a country that
refuses to acknowledge its long-
standing structural investment in
anti-Blackness, white supremacy,
patriarchy and anti-indigeneity.

I share this recent legacy of

student protest and resistance
to
oppressive
University

administration policy to remind us
that this struggle is not new nor is
it over. While the GEO3550’s strike
has officially ended after Schlissel’s
pursuit of legal action against
graduate
student
employees,

University staff carry on the original
demands. Preserving the legacy of

collective action at the University
will be crucial in giving us, broader
University community members, a
deeper understanding of the extent
of the administration’s violation(s).
Without true consciousness, we
cannot have true struggle.

As a former member of University

residential staff and a current
graduate
student
employee
at

another public university, I am no
stranger to the ways the University
system takes advantage of our labor,
our livelihood and our vulnerable
reliance on them. What is more
surprising this time is the brazen
disregard for human life and respect
of the right to protest and demand
a better community, of which the
students and workers are an integral
part. Through all of this, Schlissel
and the rest of the administration
are making their personal and
political stance quite clear: profits
over people. Thankfully the people
have it the right way around and are
putting their humanity and needs for
safety and security first.

To my fellow graduate students

and other staff members who
participated in strikes: Thank you
for your endless labor and sacrifice

on behalf of our community. While
the University system blames the
worker strike for the disarray and
precarity of the students’ conditions,
we know this is a regular tactic of the
oppressor and will continue to stand
with you until all demands are met
with a mindset of abundance over
scarcity.

To my fellow alumni: Now having

reaped the benefits of the social
capital that the Michigan credential
provides, it is our responsibility to
leverage this power and access to
force the administration to treat this
situation with more care, seriousness
and a deeper investment in student
and staff well-being. I implore those
of you who make regular donations
to the University to withhold your
donations until all demands are met,
and ensure that you are clear to the
University this is why you are no
longer donating.

To the University administration:

You claim to bleed maize and blue, to
love this University and its people.
But we’ve seen your negligence when
our own people have been bleeding
in the streets and your opportunistic
emails when the emotions have
boiled over enough that they must

be acknowledged. When Black
students fought for desegregation
in the 1960s, white University
administrators
appointed
Black

administrators to filter out students’
justice-based demands that would
actually force the University to
live up to its public mission. The
students and staff know that the
Cube only spins because of our
labor and continued investment in
the same institution that betrays
our humanity. Your indecision and
apathy masked as thoughtfulness
or bureaucratic processes will no
longer fool us; we will come together
as loudly as we do on game day to
make our voices heard.

Today, for the first time, I picked

up my favorite shirt and felt …
embarrassed. Ashamed, I tuck my
diploma away on a dusty shelf and, as
I continue to reap the benefits of this
credential and use it to create the
University of Michigan we imagine,
I wait and watch for the day it feels
worth displaying again.

M

any
University
of

Michigan students and
Michigan residents are

quick to criticize our state’s climate
— bitter cold winters, short summers
and even shorter springs and autumns
make it hard to enjoy the parts of the
year we appreciate most. Though
the cold is easy to complain about,
Michiganders, or Midwesterners
broadly, should consider themselves
blessed. Blessed because we often
do not have to experience firsthand
the catastrophic effects of natural
disasters fueled by our changing
climate.
Californians,
however,

cannot share the same level of safety.

Over the past month, California,

along with Oregon and Washington,
has been facing an unprecedented
burst of wildfires across the state. On
Sept. 27 alone, the state was battling
25 major wildfires at once, calling
for 17,000 firefighters on the front
lines to help diminish the spread and
magnitude of the blaze.

The history of California wildfires

foreshadows a frightening trend.
From 2001 to 2010, there was a total
of 7.03 million acres of land burned
by fires. From 2010 to 2020, the
number increased to 10.8 million
acres. In 2020 alone, however, there
have been 3.2 million acres of land
burned by over 7,900 fires. The area
of land burned in one year equates to
almost 1/3 of the total land burned in
the last decade, leaving behind ashes
and ruins that sum to roughly the
same area as the state of Connecticut.

Though
September
marks

the beginning of fall and cooler
temperatures,
scientists
predict

that these fires will persist through
October. The numbers continue to rise.

Meanwhile,
the
Trump

administration
continues
to

remain silent in response to the
fires. Other than President Donald
Trump’s issuance of a major disaster
declaration on Aug. 22 in response

to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s
request, Trump has not shown
any support for combatting this
continuing disaster.

Instead, he has shown ignorance

and an appalling lack of leadership
during a roundtable with federal, state
and local officials of California. Wade
Crowfoot, secretary of California
Natural Resources Agency, pleaded
Trump to “recognize the changing
climate and what it means to
(California’s) forests” and to “actually
work together with that science.”

We would like to imagine that our

president would address this concern
with respect and cooperation. But
Trump’s response conveyed the
exact opposite.

“Ok, it’ll start getting cooler,”

Trump scoffed. “You just watch.”

But will it? Noah Diffenbaugh,

climate
scientist
at
Stanford

University, completely denied this
claim in his response to the statement,
noting that “we have very clear
evidence that California is warming.
There is no scientific evidence that
California is on the cusp of a long-
term cooling trend.”

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes

of California residents. Twenty-six
people are dead. More than 6,400
structures were destroyed. And
what does our nation’s leader decide
is an appropriate response to a state
official’s cry for help? To tell him to
“just watch.”

This is not the first time our

president has utterly neglected the
science behind climate change, and
we as morally-conscious citizens
need to make sure that this will be
the last of it. Election Day is less than
two months away, and we must elect
a leader who will prioritize our health
and safety, the generations to come
and the world as we know it.

Trump does not just deny climate

change. He fuels it. Over the past few
years of his term, Trump has made

many executive orders that roll back
regulations aimed to limit pollution
and protect the environment. To
name a few, he loosened offshore
drilling safety rules that were
implemented after the disastrous BP
oil explosion in 2010; in April 2019,
he signed two executive pipeline
orders, one of which gives him the
authority to “issue, deny or amend”
permits for pipelines that cross
international borders; one month
earlier, he approved drilling for the
controversial Keystone pipeline;
he appointed Andrew Wheeler as
the EPA administrator in February
2019, a former coal lobbyist who
has undone Obama-era regulations
on coal power plant emissions since
taking the position. The list goes on.

Clearly, for Trump, the economic

success of energy corporations is
a higher priority than protecting
the natural resources that these
companies exploit. Despite his track
record of rolling back regulations
aimed
to
limit
environmental

damage
caused
by
corporate

drilling and pollution, he attempts
to disguise this developing disaster
by convincing the public that the
United States is excelling in air and
water purity — he made a remark
in the past year that “we have the
cleanest air in the world, in the
United States, and it’s gotten better
since I’m president.” This claim has
been proven false.

Trump also said that proper

forest management, specifically a
“rake” of forest floors to remove dry
debris, would make the fires on the
West Coast completely cease. This
statement, as well, was also proven
false.

Harleen Kaur is a 2015 alum of

the University of Michigan and a

Bonderman fellow and can be reached

at harleen@umich.edu.

Science over silence: Why we can’t “just watch”

SPIROS KASS | COLUMNIST

Read more at MichiganDaily.

Wednesday, September 30, 2020 — 10

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Ilana Mermelstein can be reached

at imerm@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan