Wednesday, June 15, 2022 — 7
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
BRANDON COWIT
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.
VANESSA KIEFER
Editor in Chief
T
here
are
hundreds
of
thousands of words in the
English
language.
Each
word, no matter how commonplace,
packs a powerful punch. We can
string words together to make
someone’s day, break a heart, spread
ideas or even cause mass hysteria.
While some people dismiss this
fascinating phenomenon with the
phrase “words are just words,”
this ideology entirely ignores the
communicative properties of words
and invalidates their importance to
both society and culture.
Because of our advanced level
of communication, we must be
hyper-aware of what we are saying
and the connotations of the words
we speak. I have found that our
society often does not prioritize
this understanding; our education
on these connotations and how they
might make others feel is extremely
lacking.
I have found myself surrounded
by phrases such as “that’s so gay” on
a day-to-day basis. My peers — and
honestly, myself — rarely bat an eye
when it comes to comments like the
ones I just described. Our society
has normalized the use of words
that describe someone different
from ourselves in negative contexts
to the extent that we have become
desensitized to such occurrences.
When was the last time you
heard someone say “that’s so gay” to
something that made them happy?
Likely: never. It is often used when
a person is responding to something
they do not like or when mocking
something. Using the word “gay”
with a negative connotation is a
form of discrimination toward the
LGBTQ+ community.
I used the previous phrase as
my example because it is such a
common one to hear, but the same
kind of ignorance is perpetuated
with many other misused words and
phrases such as “I’m going to kill
myself” or “that’s so Jewish.” Using
words packed with such heavy
social or historical implications
in frivolous contexts is ignorant
and disappointing. However, if I’m
giving people the benefit of the
doubt, maybe they don’t know what
it is they are doing and why it is
wrong.
In
that
case,
I’ll
break
it
down for you. Several of the
examples above can be referred
to as microaggressions, which are
typically subtle ways of showing
negative
attitudes
toward
a
marginalized group.
One of the reasons why this issue
persists is because of the numerous
people in positions of power who
have
encouraged
our
society’s
miseducation. For example, former
President Donald Trump once
stated, “I think the big problem
this country has is being politically
correct.
I’ve
been
challenged
by so many people and I don’t,
frankly, have time for total political
correctness. And to be honest with
you, this country doesn’t have time,
either.”
In some ways, there is value
in being straightforward and to
the point, but to encourage an
atmosphere of totally uncensored
speech soundly rejects the spirit
of democracy and goes against
our values of diversity, safety
and a welcoming environment.
Trump’s apparent lack of time to
replace a disrespectful word with
a respectful one has nothing to do
with time and everything to do
with the ingrained racism, sexism,
ableism
and
homophobia
that
prevails in our country — despite
how progressive we might think it
is.
Some of our distaste for political
correctness can be traced back
to ancient Greece, when wealthy
students
were
taught
more
advanced rhetoric than their less
wealthy counterparts in order to
give them an advantage in winning
elections or even evading prison
time. These ideas even carried
into our country’s founding, where
a “free marketplace of ideas”
was encouraged through limited
government
censorship.
This
meant the persuasive nature of
ideas contributed in large part to
a particular idea’s popularity and
acceptance, even if the idea was
persuading listeners in the wrong
way. These trends show a historical
relationship
between
eloquent
speech paired with an element of
distrust, which still exists today.
For this reason, we sometimes
associate carefully executed speech
with
calculated,
ill-intentioned
speech
that
is
designed
to
manipulate. Trump’s simpler and
less sophisticated (yet politically
incorrect) rhetoric appeals to many
Americans because it makes you
feel more like you are just talking to
the “guy next door.” This tendency
to associate ourselves with those
more demographically similar to us
is called homophily, and explains
why we might prefer to listen to
a more casual speaker talk to us
rather than a grandiose speaker
who seems, and probably is, smarter
than us.
With that said, it is no secret
that our leaders play a formidable
role in promoting or impeding
political correctness. While some
of us may be averse to the eloquent,
occasionally
complicated
and
politically correct speech that is
associated with the left, I urge you
to keep in mind that you can say the
exact same things in hundreds of
different ways with varying degrees
of social acceptability — that is the
beauty of the English language.
QUIN ZAPOLI
Editorial Page Editor
The history between gun
violence and white supremacy
The overuse and misuse of politically
incorrect speech
S
o
far
this
year,
there
have been over 200 mass
shootings
in
the
United
States. This annual number has
steadily increased in recent years,
from 417 in 2019, to 610 in 2020 and
692 last year. After each shooting,
we find ourselves asking how these
acts of violence keep happening
and how we can stop them. The
answer to these endless questions
is one that has been to blame for
problems throughout U.S. history,
whether we notice it or not: the
plague of white supremacy.
In
2021,
Attorney
General
Merrick Garland and members
of the Department of Homeland
Security testified to the Senate
that the greatest risk to national
security was domestic terrorism,
specifically those individuals that
“advocate for the superiority of
the white race.” This is exactly the
definition of white supremacy —
the ideology that white people are
superior to other races, and that
society would be better off with
only white people. An ideologically
similar
belief
is
the
“great
replacement” theory: the untrue
assumption that white people
are being “replaced” by influxes
of people of Color. Introduced in
the 1970s, the theory has been
repeatedly touted by prominent
public figures, including popular
conservative
Fox
News
host
Tucker Carlson and former chief
strategist for former President
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon.
When such influential political
actors
vocalize
these
beliefs,
they spread and fester, guiding
some individuals toward violent
action. Exposure to such violent
and polarizing positions creates
an intolerant environment and,
in turn, poses a threat to the
furtherance of a peaceful society.
The prominence of the white
supremacist ideology in America is
hazardous to our democracy, and
its continued relevance throughout
political and social history makes
clear that it is systematically
ingrained in the brutality we
witness almost every day on the
news. Behind almost every act
of violence in both modern and
historical America is one root
cause: white supremacy.
Read more at michigandaily.com
A
nn
Arbor
is
a
one-party
town. Democratic candidates
ordinarily
do
not
face
competitive races in the general election.
Therefore, when voters go to the polls on
Aug. 2 to vote in the Democratic primary,
they will almost certainly be voting
for our new City Council. At a moment
when national crises are so dominant
in the media, it is easy to lose sight of
the importance local politics has in our
daily existence. The city of Ann Arbor
is facing an acute crisis of affordability
and is enmeshed in the national crises
of anthropogenic climate change and
racist policing. The decisions made by
the City Council — things like renters’
rights, alternatives to policing and public
transit — all have an immediate and
strongly felt impact on our lives as Ann
Arbor residents. That’s why it’s more
important than ever for University of
Michigan students and workers to make
our voices heard by voting in the City
Council primary.
Graduate Employees’ Organization
members recently voted to endorse three
candidates for the primary: Cynthia
Harrison in Ward 1, Ayesha Ghazi Edwin
in Ward 3 and Elizabeth Nelson for
re-election in Ward 4. Our endorsements
reflect our position within the activist
and trade union movements, as well as
our priorities of housing affordability,
climate justice and abolition. They are
also informed by the urgent needs of our
membership and by our often frustrating
experience working with the council.
This year, we wanted to back candidates
who are a cut above the rest, who share
GEO’s values, who are willing to actually
act on those values and who bring a
unique or missing perspective to the
council. Consequently, we did not make
endorsements in every race, choosing
instead to only back candidates who
really differentiate themselves from the
status quo. We call on members of the
University community who share our
values to support these candidates.
Read more at michigandaily.com
It’s time to demand better
from City Council
GRADUATE EMPLOYEES ORGA-
NIZATION
LINDSEY SPENCER
Opinion Columnist
ANNA TRUPIANO
Opinion Columnist
Read more at michigandaily.com