T
oday,
many
young
people,
especially
students, want to be
vocal advocates for the issues
that they care about. With so
many issues directly impacting
this generation, like gun violence,
climate
change
and
student
debt, it is difficult to ignore the
intensifying need for the pursuit
of activism. The problem, though,
is that there are so many ways
to vocalize these goals to the
broader population. Finding the
most effective way to express your
interests is essential to being your
own sort of “perfect” activist.
Variations of activism such as
voting, participating in political
campaigns and protesting are
important for advocacy. These
acts
are
deemed
essential
to making our mark on the
democratic
process,
but
the
elementary variable behind each
of them is oftentimes left out.
Keeping every political action,
every campus protest and every
activist campaign afloat is the
fundamental value of education.
Whether it be from the courses we
take or the campus organizations
we associate ourselves with, life-
long learning and education are
essential to becoming the best
advocates we can be.
Passion about political issues
can get you to a successful point of
activism, but to fuel that passion,
you need information. Living
in the digital age, a constant
stream of political news can be
overwhelming,
so
organizing
things like workshops, seminars
and organizations of like-minded
advocates can assist in making
this flow much more efficient and
accessible.
For
the
purpose
of
this
argument, I am going to focus
on what has generally taught
me the most about activism —
the teachings of other students.
Education
has
always
been
important in my life, but it has
been especially key when it comes
to my personal and political
development. I’ve learned a lot
from courses on U.S. government
and civics that have given me a
life-long interest in politics, but
it has been the students I have
surrounded myself with that
have heavily influenced my store
of information on social issues.
In a world where young people
are becoming increasingly more
involved in political issues, it is
essential that our generation is
the one to fuel the future of social
movements and education.
Public Policy senior Elizabeth
Peppercorn is the president of the
campus organization Students
for Democracy, which prioritizes
political research and advocacy as
a means of education. She said that
“student education is an important
element
in
activism
because
education provides students with
the tools and facts they need
to make strong arguments and
educated stances on issues.” Not
only is it essential to have the
proper tools for advocacy, but
it is even more important that
organizations communicate with
students in a way that they best
understand and can respond
to directly. Being aligned with
student organizations focused on
political research, outreach and
education gives young people
the chance to learn and grow
as emerging individuals in the
democratic process.
But why is it so important that it
be “student-centered” education?
The answer is that a platform
“by” and “for” young people when
it comes to policy and justice-
oriented movements allows for
the effective building of advocates
and advocacy groups.
When
we
formulate
an
interactive
and
dialogue-
based program aimed directly
at
students,
they
feel
more
comfortable
sharing
their
opinions and concerns and can
better understand issues from a
more personalized perspective.
Students may learn primarily
from their teachers, but it is other
young people that truly influence
their actions, understand their
interests and empathize with
their hopes and fears for the
future. This is why activism
directed by young people is
essential to solving the central
political causes of the day — they
understand and will face their
effects to the greatest extent, and
can best reach others in that same
situation.
This focus on education is
not to say that we need to lessen
the pressure to vote and protest
and petition — it’s actually a call
to continue these methods and
make them more effective. We
see student activists across the
country using their voices on
stages and in the streets to put
pressure on politicians to act, but
none of this would be possible
without education. Young people
everywhere are being motivated
to become involved because they
are being surrounded by hopeful
activists that frequently discuss
social issues in a way they can
empathize with. Peppercorn said
that “activism is an important
element of student life in general
because students and youth today
want to make a better world
for themselves and for future
generations.” When we listen
to other students and hear their
opinions, we are prompted to
educate ourselves and continue
the cycle for generations to come.
Activism is only successful
when there is a strategy behind
it. This strategy can vary from
organization to organization but
each one is primarily built around
structural
foundations
and
methodology, all of which depend
on a sound educational platform.
Advocacy can’t get off the ground
without proper technique and
facts to support it, so we need
to take the time to develop the
relevant skills to conjure the
most effective and inspirational
activism possible.
The way that we can do such a
thing is with proper motivational
political
education,
which
is
especially
powerful
when
it
is expressed by young people.
Student organizations focused
on political involvement at the
University of Michigan should be
put on a pedestal, involving the
campus community with hands-
on educational workshops catered
not
only
toward
politically-
inclined students, but those new
to the scene as well; everyone
should be welcome.
Older generations constantly
say that young people have the
“power to change the world.”
This phrase is true, but we can
only use this power if we take the
appropriate steps to becoming the
best activists we can be. We can’t
go blind into our advocacy — we
need to avoid being “performative”
and misguided, which means
that political education needs
to take precedence if we desire
effective change. We can’t rely
on the formulaic teachings from
our introductory politics courses
for this. Learning by doing and
participating in dialogue with
other passionate and like-minded
young people is the key.
Whether you’re a political
science major or a student in the
College of Engineering, there is
a campus organization out there
for you to get involved in. Get out
there, join a student organization
with passionate people and start
the dialogue in your own life. If
you want to be the best activist you
can be, this is the place to start.
Spaces where young people teach
other young people are where the
best advocates of the twenty-first
century find themselves — you
can do the same.
E
very
November,
the
University of Michigan
hosts an annual Blood
Battle against The Ohio State
University in a joint effort to
increase
the
national
supply
of blood and bone marrow. Dr.
Martino Harmon, the University’s
vice president for student life,
directs this initiative through
day-long blood drives at various
locations
on
campus
nearly
every single day in November.
This year’s battle, the 40th of
its kind, was kicked off in the
Diag — accompanied of course by
plenty of food, merchandise and
sign-up information. Harmon’s
promotional emails are filled
with the necessary jargon to get
students in the spirit of giving —
“keep bleeding Maize and Blue,”
“eat lots of iron-rich food” and
“be a part of the fight to save lives
across the state and country!”
Oddly,
the
battle
cry
to
replenish
America’s
blood
stores, which are at a record
low, is not targeted at all viable
donors. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the agency
responsible for regulating blood
donations, bans all men from
giving blood within three months
of having sexual intercourse
with another man. This policy is
the result of a 2020 change that
reduced the donation deferral
period from a year to three
months. The FDA notes in this
policy that given the advances
in HIV detecting technology,
this change is supported. But as
recently as 2015, just a few years
before this improvement, all men
who have sex with a men were
subjected to a lifetime ban on
giving their blood.
In their guidance document,
the FDA claims that up to 90%
of potential donors that may be
harboring blood diseases are
ultimately deemed ineligible by
their responses to a questionnaire
about health history. However,
deferring a man from donating
just because he has had sex with
another man is a gross reflection
of the limited, under-researched
and
surface-level
knowledge
that the FDA had in their toolkit
during
the
1980s
HIV/AIDS
pandemic. It is
now understood
that there doesn’t exist, and never
had existed, an exclusively “gay-
related immunodeficiency,” and
any eligibility question that uses
sexuality as a way to preclude all
gay men from donating blood for a
given period time is simply based
in prejudice and non-science.
As it stands, a gay man
in
a
40-year
monogamous
relationship with another man is
labeled as a higher risk for blood-
borne diseases than a woman
who has recently had unprotected
sex
with
several
partners.
This juxtaposition of risk is
substantiated, in part, by a nearly
decade-old
research
finding
from the National Heart, Lung
and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
stating that a history of male-to-
male sex was associated with a
62-fold risk increase whereas a
history of multiple partners of the
opposite sex was associated with
2.3-fold increase. But given that
other activities such as routine
drug injection, prostitution and
travel to malaria-prone countries
are associated with both large
multiplicities of risk and deferral
periods of their own, it makes
more sense to use individual risk
assessments, not blanket deferral
periods, as a way to determine
blood donation eligibility. In
this way, a gay man who is also
a routine drug user and travels
to malaria-prone countries has a
higher risk score — and ultimately
receives an individual ineligibility
penalty that reflects engagement
with these activities — than a gay
man who does not partake in any
other activities of high blood-
borne disease contraction.
The key to rectifying this
injustice is cold, hard data. Most
available information shows that
individual risk assessments, not
time-based deferral strategies,
are the right ways to counteract
the spread of disease in the blood
donation process.
It is clear that the artificial
dichotomy between gay blood
and healthy blood, a perception
hand-crafted and unmoved by the
FDA, only serves to stigmatize
the LGBTQ+ community further.
Moreover, giving heterosexual
individuals the green light to
engage in multiple forms of
unsafe sex (which is a risk factor
in itself) and donate blood in the
same breath is a double standard,
and one that people are not
addressing in the correct manner.
Half-hearted responses are a
large reason why the policy still
stands in 2022.
The U-M Blood Battle emails
state
that
“Blood
donation
eligibility
should
not
be
determined
based
on
sexual
orientation and policy change
is needed in order to achieve
this goal. At the University of
Michigan, we strive for our
drives to provide as inclusive an
atmosphere as possible.” These
emails link to the Red Cross — an
organization that actively opposes
the FDA policy — for information
about how LGBTQ+ men can
contribute to the cause. The
primary method through which
these men are able to participate,
though, is manning blood drive
booths, recruiting donors and
other administrative tasks.
Frankly, deferring to the Red
Cross and vague DEI statements
about inclusive atmospheres is a
mismanagement of our resources
here at the University of Michigan.
As a research-heavy institution,
we have the labs, researchers
and money to get projects off
the ground that would give the
FDA’s Blood Products Advisory
Committee indisputable evidence
that our current understanding of
risk assessment is wrong. Instead
of cutting whole segments of the
populace off from their ability
to donate to blood, we should
be focusing on data-intensive
individual risk assessments that
actually help in determining risk
of disease.
While the FDA is researching
alternative methods other than
time-deferral, the University of
Michigan has the finances to make
these same investigations, as well
as other kinds of advancements
in blood testing, risk assessment
accuracy and false-negative donor
origins. Furthermore, we must do
our due diligence by conducting
research that supports exclusion
criteria for heterosexual activities
in
which
a
similar
causal
relationship between the type of
sex and infectivity exists.
D
ear President Ono,
Welcome
to
the
University of Michigan!
My friends at the University of
British Columbia tell me great
things about your tenure there.
I hope your approach embodies
this university’s mission “to
serve the people of Michigan and
the world through preeminence
in
creating,
communicating,
preserving
and
applying
knowledge, art, and academic
values, and in developing leaders
and citizens who will challenge
the present and enrich the
future.”
As you begin your term, I feel
it is important to bring to your
attention the growing number of
emails from the U-M leadership
— including your predecessor
— that take a specific stance
not only on sensitive political
and social issues of the day, but
on issues for which there is no
consensus among the diverse
members of the U-M community
of students, faculty and staff.
On
behalf
of
community
members,
including
myself,
that feel marginalized because
our personal beliefs do not
align with those of the U-M
leadership, I respectfully ask
that you enact communication
policies that either abstain from
sending such partisan emails
or at least include all sides and
opinions on controversial topics.
As a Chaldean-American and a
first-generation college student,
I believe that such actions will
foster a diverse and inclusive
environment at the University,
which I feel has been noticeably
absent during the past four
years.
You, and other members of
your administration, function
as stewards for the University,
which is, at the end of the day,
a public institution. I humbly
ask how partisan emails from
the administration that opine
on social issues — ranging from
the Dobbs v. Jackson case to
overturning Roe v. Wade to
the
Russian-Ukrainian
and
Palestinian-Israeli
conflicts
abroad — represent the diverse
perspectives
of
the
entire
community. It is also not clear
how such emails expressing
the personal beliefs of U-M
stewards
differ
from
other
university
employees
who
misuse funds and resources for
their own benefit while harming
the institution’s stakeholders.
I
appreciate
the
difficult
nature of navigating hot-button
topics, and I do not envy your job
in that regard. While partisan
emails to U-M stakeholders
may temporarily appease some
groups, I fear that appeasing
a subset of our community
is
detrimental
to
long-term
community value because it
widens the divide between those
on both sides of each issue.
For example, on June 24, 2022,
Interim President Mary Sue
Coleman sent an email weighing
in on the U.S. Supreme Court’s
recent ruling overturning Roe
v. Wade, which sent decisions
over abortion rights back to the
states. Her electronic missive
(emphasis added) stated: “I
strongly
support
access
to
abortion services, and I will
do everything in my power as
president to ensure we continue
to
provide
this
critically
important care. Our campus is
more than half women; we care
about our own communities as
well as those we serve through
clinical care and education.
I am deeply concerned about
how prohibiting abortion would
affect U-M’s medical teaching,
our research, and our service to
communities in need.”
That email was written from
a
first-person
perspective,
which clearly represents her
personal beliefs rather than
those of a steward of the
University’s general education
mission. A mission that serves
the
University’s
diverse
stakeholders, including those
that may take exception —
which may include a portion
of the “more than half of
women” that Coleman cites
— with the statement that
abortions “provide this critically
important care” to all members
of our community, including
future U-M stakeholders. For
instance, how should devout
Catholic students or pro-life
members of our community
feel when reading an email that
sets the tone for the campus
environment?
The University of Michigan’s
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
plan
includes
strategies
for
creating
an
inclusive
and
equitable campus climate. It
states that the University has
designed campus-wide action
items to “encourage a culture
of belonging in which every
member of our community can
grow and thrive.” How does
espousing personal views from
the sacred platform upon which
you and others lead convey
a sense of inclusion? How
does it encourage diversity of
thought when the views of the
disaffected group are ignored or
implicitly demonized?
In addition to sending partisan
emails, the failure to send emails
addressing other partisan issues
also reduces a sense of inclusion
to
many
on
campus.
The
selective absence of emails on
some topics provides a signal to
our community that such issues
are not noteworthy — especially
when juxtaposed with emails on
topics that the administration
clearly believes are noteworthy.
For example, our country lost 13
brave military service members
on Aug. 26, 2021, when a Taliban
suicide bomber detonated an
explosive
device
at
Hamid
Karzai International Airport in
Kabul, Afghanistan.
Opinion
Dear President Ono: No more activist
administrators
Wednesday, November 16, 2022 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Young people are the best teachers
when it comes to activism
Gay blood doesn’t exist
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
PAUL SESI
Opinion Contributor
LINDSEY SPENCER
Opinion Columnist
NAMRATHA NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
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.
PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors
ANNA FUDER/Daily