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