W

ith its 2022 release, 
the satirical horror 
movie 
“Fresh” 

follows 
a 
young 
woman, 

Noa, through her newfound 
relationship with a supposed 
plastic 
surgeon, 
Steve. 
The 

relationship 
turns 
into 
a 

nightmare when Steve takes Noa 
to a remote house he owns, drugs 
her and locks her in a cell with 
other women who have fallen 
victim to Steve’s alluring nature. 
He proceeds to surgically remove 
her body parts piece by piece 
in order to keep the meat fresh, 
and subsequently sells them on 
the black market for purposes 
including anything from medical 
use to cannibalism. This practice 
has become commonly referred 
to as organ trafficking or the red 
market, where human body parts 
including organs, blood, bones, 
eggs and more are traded.

As I watched this movie, 

I found myself shocked and 
horrified to learn about this. 
Because 
the 
human 
organ 

market 
is 
an 
underground 

market, it is difficult to make 
any definitive estimates of its 
value. Journalist Scott Carney 
supposes it could be worth 
billions of dollars. There are 
estimates that 10% of all organ 
transplants are performed using 
trafficked organs. 

Similar to the events in 

“Fresh,” selling body parts as a 
commodity is often involuntary 
and typically preys on society’s 
most vulnerable populations. 
In 2008, for instance, 17 people 
were freed from India’s “blood 
farm.” The scheme began with 
the luring of poor migrants to 
a house with the promise of 
employment, but the promised 
job turned out to be $7 per unit 
of blood they gave. The victims 
initially participated willingly, 
but when they wanted to leave 
they were so weakened by the 

blood loss they could not. The 
migrants were then beaten and 
kept in cages in the house for two 
and half years, being forced to 
give blood multiple times a week 
with no benefit or payment. The 
Red Cross recommends waiting 
at least 8 weeks between blood 
donations, which further proves 
how exploitative this behavior 
was. 

While many transactions on 

the red market are involuntary, 
there are times when people 
voluntarily sell their body parts. 
However, this is often because 
they are in situations of great 
financial 
pressure. 
Carney 

describes 
these 
markets 
as 

taking health and resources away 
from the poor and funneling 
them upwards through social 
classes. 
For 
example, 
after 

a 2004 tsunami in India, an 
emerging Indian refugee camp 
quickly gained the nickname 
of Kidneyville because of the 
high proportion of desperate 
refugees who sold their kidneys. 

Despite 
often 
being 
aware 

they were being scammed, the 
refugees proceeded with the 
surgeries because it was their 
only option. I am left to wonder, 
are voluntary organ sales truly 
voluntary if the seller is in a 
situation of desperation?

In light of these involuntary 

and 
voluntary 
organ 
sales, 

the 
similarities 
between 

organ trafficking and human 
trafficking are not absent. In 
fact, most countries include 
organ 
trafficking 
in 
their 

definition of human trafficking. 
The United States and Canada, 
however, do not. 

In both forms of trafficking, 

the 
perpetrators 
prey 
on 

society’s most helpless members. 
For either form of trafficking, 
participation 
is 
typically 

involuntary. Additionally, the 
perpetrators are the benefactors 
in human and organ trafficking, 
not the victims. These markets 
flourish because the economics 
of organ donation support such 

activities, as there is a low supply 
of organs and high demand for 
the much-needed commodity. 

The ability to stop organ 

trafficking is difficult — if not 
impossible — because there 
is not a substantial amount 
of 
evidence 
to 
work 
with 

regarding the topic. As a result, 
the problem of organ trafficking 
does not get the attention that 
human trafficking does. 

The information that does 

exist rarely reaches the hands of 
those able to act, such as judicial 
authorities and law enforcement 
authorities. Many times these 
crimes are not even reported 
or known to have occurred. 
There is a great web of criminal 
networks, 
collusion 
within 

hospitals and manipulation of 
medical insurers that must be 
further investigated before any 
productive action can be taken. 

In order to end these crimes 

against 
humanity, 
society 

must develop a better system 
for monitoring and tracking 

organ donations. This could 
take the form of following the 
money 
path, 
implementing 

more severe punishments for 
these crimes and increasing 
the amount of funds spent on 
research and prevention. The 
United Nations Office on Drugs 
and Crime asserts the need 
for a strengthened response, 
which would include increased 
evidence-based 
knowledge, 

raised 
awareness 
amongst 

target groups and improved 
legislative and non-legislative 
measures. 

For me, it took watching the 

horrors of organ trafficking 
in action through the movie 
“Fresh” to realize how very 
real the problem is. This only 
goes to show how simple it is 
to increase awareness, whether 
that is through a movie or even 
the words you are reading right 
now. Whatever way you choose 
to gain insight, remember it is 
never too late for change and 
action.

R

ussia’s 
invasion 
of 

Ukraine 
has 
rightly 

generated international 

outcry 
and 
condemnation. 

The 
war 
is 
clearly 
an 

imperial action, with Putin 
denying the very existence 
of the Ukrainian people and 
explicitly attempting to make 
Ukraine a part of Russia. The 
consequences 
are 
horrific. 

Russian forces have killed or 
injured thousands of civilians 
and have committed a number 
of atrocities that are likely war 
crimes, including destroying 
the maternity and children’s 
wards of a prenatal hospital, 
cluster bombing a preschool, 
dropping 
landmines 
on 
a 

civilian 
escape 
route 
and 

executing civilians. 

As of March 24, the invasion 

had 
displaced 
10 
million 

people, 
“the 
fastest 
and 

largest displacement of people 
in Europe since World War II.” 
A wide variety of groups have 
rightly demanded that Russia 
immediately end its attack 
and 
completely 
withdraw 

its forces. Afterward, Russia 
must be held accountable for 
its actions.

The 
vital 
attention 
to 

and support for Ukrainians 
comparatively highlights the 
widespread lack of such a 
stance 
toward 
Palestinians’ 

decades-long fight for self-
determination. 
The 
world 

largely stands by as Palestinians 
are 
bombed, 
murdered, 

imprisoned, 
evicted 
and 

maimed; as Palestinian human 
rights groups are banned as 
“terrorist” organizations; and 
as Palestinians are forced to 
live under apartheid — a crime 
against humanity according 
to 
international 
law. 
The 

primary Palestinian liberation 
movement 
— 
the 
Boycott, 

Divestment, 
and 
Sanctions 

Movement — has been falsely 
labeled, 
by 
The 
Jerusalem 

Declaration On Antisemitism, 
as inherently antisemitic and 
therefore oppressive.

To many, the situations in 

Ukraine and Palestine are so 
different as to be incomparable. 
And clearly, the situations have 
many differences, including the 
fact that Ukraine is a member 
state of the United Nations, 
whereas the State of Palestine 
is a non-member observer state. 
However, this legal difference 
has nothing to do with the 
basic right of all peoples to 
self-determination. 
In 
fact, 

Russia’s denial of Ukrainian 
statehood 
underscores 
how 

recognition of this right is 
ultimately 
political. 
If 
we 

accept that all peoples have 
the right to choose their own 
destinies, then we must be as 
insistent and urgent in our 
support for Palestinians as we 
are for Ukrainians.

The University of Michigan’s 

actions demonstrate that it is 
not committed to respecting 
the right of all peoples to self-
determination. On March 15, 
the University announced that 
it would divest from Russia 
after 
Ukrainian 
students 

submitted an open letter calling 
for divestment (as well as aid to 

displaced Ukrainian scholars 
and 
students 
and 
support 

for students and employees 
from 
Belarus 
and 
Russia). 

By contrast, the University 
has long refused to divest 
from companies that violate 
Palestinian 
human 
rights, 

despite decades of advocacy 
by the Palestinian solidarity 
group 
Students 
Allied 
for 

Freedom and Equality and its 
allies. 

When 
Central 
Student 

Government passed resolution 
A.R. 7-109 in 2017, asking 
the University to appoint a 
committee that would simply 
consider 
divestment 
from 

companies doing business with 
Israel, the University refused, 
saying that the purpose of the 
endowment was “to generate 
the greatest possible income.” 
This was an explicit statement 
that 
the 
University 
values 

profit 
over 
people, 
which 

remains 
the 
University’s 

position on divestment from 
Israel to this day. And yet it 
took less than three weeks for 
the University to announce an 
explicitly politically-motivated 
divestment from Russia.

None of this is to attempt 

to 
minimize 
the 
atrocities 

being 
perpetrated 
against 

Ukrainians. Rather, this is a call 
to recognize that the urgency 
we rightly feel to support 
Ukrainian self-determination 
must also be applied toward the 
liberation of Palestinians and 
other oppressed peoples. We 
must fight as passionately for 
Palestinian self-determination 
as we fight for Ukrainian self-
determination. 
Indeed, 
we 

need only look to Palestine, 
the Native American lands now 
known as the United States 
and other colonized regions of 
the globe to see what Ukraine 
might look like if Ukrainians’ 
right to self-determination is 
not defended and upheld.

Fortunately, 
Palestinian, 

Native 
American, 
Black, 

Latinx and Asian students have 
already done significant work 
to identify concrete ways that 
the University can support the 
liberation of all peoples. The 
Students of Color Liberation 
Front, composed of a variety 
of racial justice organizations 
on campus, has articulated 
a 
unified 
set 
of 
anti-

racist 
demands 
addressing 

pedagogy, 
curriculum, 

faculty hiring (including a 
demand for the creation of a 
Palestinian Studies Scholar/
Chair), student support and 
recruitment, 
divestment, 

policing and more. 

Nineteen 
campus 

organizations and over 200 
individuals 
cosigned 
these 

demands, but the University 
has yet to implement or take 
meaningful action toward most 
of them. Ukrainian students 
are also currently identifying 
ways that the University can 
support 
Ukrainian 
students 

and scholars through remote 
education, 
emergency 

admissions 
and 
material 

support. 
By 
implementing 

these plans, the University has 
an opportunity to become an 
institution that respects the 
human rights of all people and 
peoples. The only question is 
whether it will.

Charles Hilu was contacted 

for comment in advance of this 
Op-Ed’s publication.
T

ruth,” 
“accuracy” 
and 

“objectivity” 
are 
the 

pillars 
of 
journalistic 

ethics. Sadly, it is clear that 
Charles Hilu, and The Michigan 
Review as a whole, do not uphold 
these cornerstones. In his article, 
Hilu took it upon himself to 
personally attack, misrepresent 
and degrade me, as a means to 
push his own racist agenda, all 
without ever once contacting 
nor reaching out to me. Hilu 
was supposedly responding to a 
letter which I addressed to the 
University’s Board of Regents, 
but it is clearly apparent that Hilu 
did not read my letter, or rather, 
his white privilege blinded him 
from seeing anything other than 
his fallacious interpretation of it. 

It’s one thing to utilize the 

power of the pen to uphold facts, 
and bring forth positive change 
within society, yet it is another 
to abuse said power to attack, 
defame and weaponize words 
against someone with whom 
you were not even bold enough 
to confront and have an actual 
conversation with. Many who 
have read the fallacious article 
attacking my character, most 
definitely have a few words 
in mind to describe Hilu: A 
cowardly racist student hiding 
behind their white privilege. 

Unfortunately, 
cowardly 

racism, 
white 
privilege 
and 

misleading quotes are far too 
common on this campus. One 
thing that was accurate within 
the article is that yes, I am a Black 
man. However I fear no man — 
in fact it would behoove Hilu to 
name one white student upon this 
campus whom I’m threatened 
by, seeing that in his article he 
stated that I was “threatened by 
white students.” In response to 
that fallacious statement, I quote 
one of my favorite scriptures: 
“The Lord is on my side; I will 
not fear: what can man do unto 
me?” Utilizing racist undertones, 
Hilu 
has 
compromised 
my 

safety as a Black student on this 
predominantly white campus. 
To that, I say I will not waiver 
nor fold, and I will continue to 
stand and fight for equity and 
dismantling racism of all forms, 
especially on this campus! 

In the article, Hilu begged the 

question: “If there are too many 
white people in a certain place, 
the solution is to remove them. 
How does the University do this? 
Should it release a statement 
saying 
white 
people 
are 

unwelcome in a campus space 
that their tuition and tax dollars 
fund?” The Trotter Multicultural 
Center, as it is known today, 
began as “Trotter House,” a Black 
Student Cultural Center. African 
American students united under 
the Black Action Movement 

(BAM) to help students who 
experienced 
obstacles 
within 

their 
educational 
process. 

“Trotter House” was birthed out 
of this movement, founded at a 
rambling old house on the corner 
of 
South 
University 
Avenue 

and 
East 
University 
Avenue 

and named in honor of William 
Monroe Trotter. 

As Hilu writes, yes, Dr. King 

did in fact have a dream, but I can 
assure you that his dream was 
not to be misrepresented, nor 
to have his words weaponized 
by cowardly racists trying to 
tear down a Black man. Since he 
likes quotes, however, here is one 
from James Baldwin: “I am not 
your negro!”

His colorblind theory solidifies 

Hilu’s racist nature, and the fact 
that he most definitely skipped 
his Race and Ethnicity Class 
requirement. Not only that, but 
it disappointed me that after 
coming to him as an adult, face 
to face, following the release of 
his article, his energy completely 
changed, thus further solidifying 
the cowardice that comes with 
attacking an individual behind 
a pen. The next time that you 
plan to weaponize words against 
me or anyone on this campus, at 
least have the gall to reach out to 
those whom you are attacking. 
Trotter Center would not be 
here without the activism and 
contributions of Black students 
on this campus. 

To the readers, I would also 

let it be known that I did not 
shed one tear in this incident, as 
Hilu himself confirmed when I 
personally addressed him about 
said remark. Funny how racists’ 
energy 
changes 
when 
those 

whom they attack confront them. 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
10 — Wednesday, April 13, 2022 

“As Hilu writes, 

yes, Dr. King 
did in fact have 
a dream, but I 
can assure you 
that his dream 
was not to be 

misrepresented, 

nor have 
his words 
weaponized 
by cowardly 
racists trying 
to tear down a 

Black man. 

BYRON BROOKS
Opinion Contributor

Life’s a beach

JARED ENO

Opinion Contributor

Organ trafcking is not getting the attention it deserves — here’s why

ANNA TRUPIANO

Opinion Columnist

Op-Ed: No tears 
— just Charlie’s 

racist fears!

Op-Ed: The necessity of supporting 
self-determination for Ukrainians, 

Palestinians and all oppressed peoples

Design by Tamara Turner