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