T
he first time someone referred
to me as an alien, I laughed. I
did not have a big, bald head.
My skin wasn’t green and my eyes,
while on the large side, looked quite
normal to me. The word “alien”
followed me around for years. In
America, because of my immigration
status, I was as extraterrestrial as Zoe
Saldana in “Avatar.”
Therefore, when confronted with
the question, “What does an alien
look like?” in a freshman seminar, my
answer was, “they look a bit like us.”
According to the Oxford English
Dictionary, the meaning “foreigner”
has been associated with the word
“alien” as early as the 1380s. The
first citation for the science-fiction
meaning was in 1929, in the Wonder
Stories magazine. It appears that we
had been using the word “alien” to
refer to foreigners long before we used
it to refer to extraterrestrial creatures.
Consequently, we can conclude that
when the English-speaking world first
wrote about Martians in space, they
imagined these Martians to be similar
to foreigners. Alien means the same
today as it did in the 1380s — it is used
to differentiate between people based
on race and borders. It is a pejorative
term that strips immigrants of their
humanity and their rights on the basis
of such humanity.
In
18th
and
19th
century
humanitarianism,
autopsies
were
popularized. They made it clear
that on the inside, our bodies are
extremely similar, if not all the same.
It is one of the reasons humanitarian
aid exists today. We realize, above all,
we are human. According to Thomas
Laqueur, “the humanitarian narrative
relies on the personal body, not only
as the locus of pain but also as the
common bond between those who
suffer and those who would help.”
But the act of referring to a person
as an “alien” clashes with the notion
of humanity. Identifying someone
as “alien” disregards all of their
other forms of identity and simply
classifies them as “the other.” It
is an unnecessary word that only
serves the purpose of differentiating
between people on the basis of race,
ethnicity and nationality. It is used to
deepen the divide between “us” and
“them,” and it perpetuates racism and
problematic stereotypes.
In his article about the social
and legal construction of “aliens,”
Kevin Johnson writes: “the concept
of the alien helps to reinforce and
strengthen
nativist
sentiment
toward members of new immigrant
groups, which in turn influences U.S.
responses to immigration and human
rights issues.”
These influences appear in politics
and laws that are very prominent in
our society’s very recent political
agenda. The Muslim Ban comes
to mind. The infamous wall at the
Mexican-American
border
comes
to mind. Children in cages and
separation of families comes to
mind. The rampant sentiment of
“go back to your country” comes to
mind.
My mother, who doesn’t speak
English, works at a bistro. A customer
thought that she made his coffee with
water instead of milk and told her to
“go back to Russia.” My mother is not
Russian.
Words carry meaning. Language
influences attitudes in society. The
fact that extraterrestrial beings are
named after immigrants serves as
proof. The word alien carries negative
connotations that reinforce distinctions
and divisions between human beings. It
perpetuates stereotypes that make it
impossible for our society to progress.
The only thing all aliens have in
common is that they’re aliens. The
only thing that all people have in
common is that they’re people. You
can’t be both.
D
espite
the
few
fond
memories of my time at
high school, I am certain
that I would have preferred my
in-person experience to that of any
K-12 student currently attending class
virtually. Now, nearly a year into the
pandemic, a significant proportion of
schools still remain closed, offering
instruction solely via a computer
screen.
President Joe Biden entered office
with an ambitious reopening plan,
pledging to return K-12 students to
classrooms within his first 100 days.
Following the Centers for Disease
Control
and
Prevention’s
new
guidelines for reopening, announced
last Friday, it is looking like that plan is
not only ambitious but unlikely.
With that being said, even if Biden’s
original threshold back in December
was over-aggressive, opening schools
is possible. And, for the sake of all of
the students who have dysfunctional
or
abusive
households,
depend
on food from their school, do not
have strong internet connections
or are suffering through Zoom-
administered physics lessons, it
should be treated as a priority.
According to the CDC’s report,
elementary
schools
are
pretty
much in the clear to go back to
the classroom. As long as proper
procedures, such as mask-wearing
and social distancing, are followed,
they can operate regardless of the
community transmission rate. Doing
that is not feasible for every school,
depending on the potential size and
infrastructure limitations, but for
many, it can be done. Middle schools
and high schools are also permitted to
operate, except if transmission rates
in the district reach the highest level
— defined by either a 10% or greater
positive community test rate or 100
or more cases per 100,000 people in a
seven-day period.
The main barrier to schools
reopening
countrywide
is
not
necessarily the logistics of adhering
to safety regulations, even if that is
difficult to do in some districts. One
of the most prominent oppositions
is from teachers’ unions and staff
within the buildings, many of whom
do not believe that schools can be
reopened in a safe manner.
Teacher unions have held firm that
a strict set of demands must be put in
place before the process of reopening
schools can begin. But even they are
beginning to lay down their guard
following this new report from the
CDC, with Randi Weingarten, the
president of the American Federation
of Teachers, responding with a
positive review: “Today, the CDC met
fear of the pandemic with facts and
evidence. … For the first time since
the start of this pandemic, we have a
rigorous road map, based on science,
that our members can use to fight for
a safe reopening.”
For some, vaccinations have
been at the heart of that strict
set of demands — teachers in
Minnesota
have
rallied
and
nurses, educators and parents plan
to hold daily press conferences
to voice their concerns about a
rushed reopening.
While the CDC agrees with
unions that teachers should be
among the top of the priority
hierarchy, vaccinations are not a
prerequisite for students nor staff
under these new guidelines. New
York City’s success in regard to
teacher safety has been evidence
for that.
Still, one prominent concern
remains for others: ventilation.
Many schools are old and lack
proper
ventilation
systems,
which in the context of COVID-
19 could present a significant
risk for its occupants. Experts
have criticized the CDC’s report
on this point, noting that a less
aggressive emphasis should be
placed on sanitizing surfaces
around school buildings and more
should be placed on ensuring
adequate ventilation. After all,
this is an airborne disease.
Biden and the House Democrats
are working on a solution to various
infrastructure
restraints.
Their
proposed
COVID-19
relief
bill
includes $129 billion in education
relief funding that, in theory, could
address improper ventilation in
applicable
districts.
Of
course,
infrastructure like that will take
some time to implement, but once it is,
a true in-person learning experience
could be in sight.
The reality is reopening will not
be perfectly risk-free. But that does
not mean it is extraordinarily risky.
And the values of in-person education
need to be weighed against these
risks.
As
Gov.
Gretchen
Whitmer
stated this month, “The value of
in-person learning for our kids is
immeasurable.” She is spot on.
Virtual schooling removes nearly
all of the social aspects of school,
stripping learning down to the cut-
and-dried: teaching and learning.
There is only so much that teachers
can do to foster participation and
students certainly do not have the
same ability to chat or check-in with
their peers as they do in person.
Racial inequities, which were
already prominent within our school
systems prior to the pandemic, are
now exacerbated by online or hybrid
learning. Nearly 30% of all K-12
public school students in the United
States do not have proper access to
the internet in their homes. This,
mixed with parents who are often
already stretched thin with their own
jobs and the loud environments that
are common within multiple-family
homes, makes for a horrendous
learning environment for a large
proportion of American students.
The virus’s danger must be
acknowledged. But the CDC has
already considered the risks, and
within the context of schooling, the
danger can be heavily mitigated in
several ways.
We should not be abandoning
the concept of in-person schooling
because it may require some extra
work to reopen. Instead, go full steam
ahead. The consequences of being
stuck at home for students are only
going to multiply if we don’t.
T
his summer was not
the first time Black Lives
Matter protesters took to
the streets demanding change and
accountability of and within “the
system.” However, it was one of the
first times that substantive policy
proposals came out of the movement
and into mainstream discourse. The
main policy proposal: defunding the
police.
This has different definitions
depending on who you ask, but it can
range anywhere from reallocating
some
of
the
funding
police
departments receive to mental health
and counseling initiatives all the
way to abolishing the entire police
system in this country. I am not here
to discuss the merits of this plan, but
merely the messaging that younger
progressives brought to the streets
this summer.
In
early
December,
former
President Barack Obama said, “I
guess you can use a snappy slogan
like ‘Defund The Police,’ but, you
know, you lost a big audience the
minute you say it, which makes it a lot
less likely that you’re actually going to
get the changes you want done.”
What Obama is saying is that
there are serious and systemic
problems that need to be solved
and addressed by politicians, but
by using such harsh language,
younger Democrats have alienated
themselves
from
the
larger
population. I know from experience
that older Americans were turned
off from the language of “defund
the police” at first because they
viewed that as a direct threat to
their personal safety. One huge
assumption that progressives made
is that the average person will read
beyond the title of a plan and do
their due diligence in researching
the actual policies it is aiming to
advocate. It is impossible to expect
this of every American. Clearly, our
messaging matters. A lot.
In a meta-analysis of polls in June,
around 31% of Americans supported
defunding the police system. What is
even more shocking is that when the
polling question changes from “Do
you support defunding the police?” to
a more specific question asking if you
would support using some taxpayer
funds that go to the police to other
agencies that could better respond
to some emergencies, the number
shoots up to 72%.
This represents a massive gap
between the support of the slogan
and the support of the actual
messaging behind it. Almost three in
four Americans believe in the concept
of taking some responsibilities off the
plate of law enforcement and giving
them to more qualified professionals
instead. This stands sharply in
contrast with the slightly more than
one in four who support the attached
slogan.
This shows us that Obama was
right: Messaging matters. People
often quickly jump the gun and go
for the home-run solution when the
practical and effective approach
is right in front of their eyes. It
is important to understand that
policymaking does not happen in a
simple Democratic or Republican
vacuum. Real policymaking takes
compromise and understanding of
others.
A lot of young people simply see
the world from one lens, sometimes
clouded by privilege and relative
inexperience. While well-intentioned,
the messaging of defunding the police
played right into the hands of the
current Republican Party in the 2020
election cycle; they ran numerous
false
ads
targeting
Democratic
candidates
saying
that
these
candidates supported defunding the
police when many had categorically
denied this. These include the senate
seats in 2020 in Maine, Iowa, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia
— the majority of which Democrats
lost — as well as attempting to leverage
this claim in the presidential race.
Additionally, an ad claiming that
Joe Biden supported defunding the
police decreased his net favorable
rating by 11 points in focus groups.
Black
Americans,
who
many
progressives claim to be acting on
the behalf of, do not overwhelmingly
support this policy — anywhere from
51% of Black voters in Michigan
are actually against defunding the
police. These findings confirm that
using this divisive messaging is not
accomplishing the goal we need to
be striving for: police reform. It is
getting us further away from that
goal in exchange for a snazzy slogan
that we can exert on our parents or
less “woke” friends.
While I believe the damage of
the “defund the police” slogan has
already been done, progressives,
liberals,
independents
and
conservatives concerned with the
gravely serious issues of police
brutality and systemic racism should
instead look to see how we can best
solve this in the future.
We can do it by approaching
people who do not look or think like
us to see how best to get our message
across to them. There have been
many issues where messaging has
limited the policy goals behind it,
but it must stop here. Progressives
have great ideas to move this country
in a positive direction, but we must
understand how our views come
across to others and plan accordingly.
If
we
want
to
genuinely
accomplish something with our
messaging, it is not enough to merely
think we are correct and not care
about the public perception. We must
engage with others on a substantive
level to truly accomplish policy
change in the future.
12 — Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
MADELYN VERVAECKE
| CARTOONIST CAN BE CONTACTED AT MIVERVAE@UMICH.EDU.
SHUBHUM GIROTI | COLUMNIST
XHULIA GURI | CONTRIBUTOR
JOHN TUMPOWSKY | COLUMNIST
Shubhum Giroti can be reached at
sgiroti@umich.edu.
Xhulia Guri is a junior in the College of
Literature, Science & the Arts and can be
reached at xguri@umich.edu.
John Tumpowsky can be reached at
jgtump@umich.edu.
Progressive messaging needs an overhaul
I am a person, not an “alien”
Schools can, and should, reopen now
BRITTANY BOWMAN
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.
CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
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.
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
John Grieve
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Gabrijela Skoko
Elayna Swift
Joel Weiner
Erin White
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Design by Yassmine El-Rewini