O
n Tuesday, Nov. 8,
I stood in line for
five hours alongside
hundreds of my peers to change
my
voter
registration
and
cast my vote in the midterm
elections. When my friends
and I finally made it out of the
University of Michigan Museum
of Art at 8:15 p.m., breathing in
the air of freedom for the first
time since 2:30 p.m., all I could
think about was how I had
wasted five perfectly productive
hours of my life.
Had I voted early, like a
responsible member of society, I
could have spent those five hours
catching up on lectures, working
on a CS project or even just
binge watching “The Vampire
Diaries.” But instead, I stood in
a line doing absolutely nothing. I
didn’t complain, though, nor do
I have a right to complain right
now, because I took those five
hours as my punishment for the
original reason I had planned to
not vote early: I wasn’t going to
vote at all.
Registered to vote in New York
City, I was guided by the notion
that my blue vote wouldn’t really
matter, so what was the point?
Moreover, because changing my
registration would still leave me
voting in Ann Arbor — quite a
‘blue’ city as well — I didn’t see
the point to that either. I know;
I sound like a terrible member
of society. How could I be so
callous about my civic duty? But
it’s the truth.
I genuinely, to my core, didn’t
care about voting because for
so long, even preceding my 18th
birthday, I didn’t really believe
one vote could hold that much
sway. That all changed last
Tuesday. So, in case you share
the same sentiments I once held
and you don’t really have the
care or motivation to go vote in
the future, I am here to tell you
what changed my mind.
One of the biggest factors in
deciding to vote was realizing
that my vote could matter. To be
clear, this was the first election
I have ever been eligible to vote
in, but my thoughts on voting
have been established for quite
a while. Specifically, I have
always thought since we are
such a highly populated country,
the absence of my vote wouldn’t
really matter.
I was shocked, however, to
see that often, the margins are
not as large as I once assumed.
In the 2021 Democratic primary
for
Florida’s
20th
District,
Sheila
Cherfilus-McCormick
won by just five votes; the
2018 Democratic primary for
Baltimore
County
executive
was decided by 17 votes. And if
you think those are low stakes
elections, or not as important,
in 2016 a Vermont state Senate
primary was determined by
one vote. Hearing about these
cases poked a giant hole in
my theory because, in these
races, my vote wouldn’t be one
amongst thousands, but rather
one amongst five — or even
potentially the defining vote.
Seeing that races can come down
to the wire was an eye opener for
me.
Even though races can come
close, my original thought still
stood true: in dominantly blue
states or cities, my additional
blue vote still wouldn’t really
have much of an impact. What
really made me change my mind
about voting on this particular
Tuesday was an infographic that
said in essence, “South Asian
women have worked so hard for
the right to vote, don’t waste it,”
and that really got me.
Though specifically aimed
at South Asian women, the
general message rings true for
a majority of us. There was a
time when only white men with
property had the right to vote, a
time when minorities couldn’t
vote and even to this day there
are many people who can’t vote
as a result of voter suppression.
The point is that the right to vote
is not a given, and we shouldn’t
take it for granted. Not only have
people fought incredibly hard to
make sure you and I can vote, but
that fight is still ongoing. To just
throw all that hard work away by
not voting feels like a waste.
Gen Z’s voter turnout hit a
record high this year, voting
in historic numbers across the
country. Many are crediting the
stop of the red wave to Gen Z
and their high turnout. In some
states, voter enthusiasm as a
whole exceeded the high mark
that was set in 2018, especially
in battleground states. Even with
these improvements, however,
voter apathy as a whole is still
a serious issue. In a handful of
states, voter turnout actually
reached record lows – Mississippi
and West Virginia saw less than
35% of eligible voters participate.
So even though you may
be
seeing
the
infographics
applauding Gen Z’s effort, which
is deserved, voter apathy still
exists to a high degree and we
should be aware of it. Whether
it be combating apathy within
yourself or trying to reach those
around you, do what you can
to restore the faith in voting. I
admit, I definitely had lost mine.
But with a little push towards my
civic duty and a reminder of the
lengths people have gone to for
me to have this privilege, I can
confidently say I will forever
exercise my right to vote.
I
t’s easy to look at the history
of colonialism, capitalism and
climate change, see all of the
wreckage that corporations have
left behind and want nothing to
do with it. Even we, Net Impact
Undergrad, as a business and
sustainability club on campus, are
often pessimistic about the success
of an environmental revolution
and
long-term
sustainable
economic
growth
under
our
current capitalist system. Yet,
we’re still enrolled in business
school. Why? Because we refuse
to be complacent with climate
disaster, and we want to roll up our
sleeves to get the work done.
Three weeks ago, we hosted
Gerry Anderson, the former CEO
and Chairman of DTE Energy,
to talk to students about how it
is possible to make change and
have an impact in a historically
unsustainable industry. Alongside
nearly 200 attendees, our event
also featured a few protesters upset
with DTE’s past (and present)
dependency on coal and other
fossil fuels destroying our earth.
As protesters’ signs helpfully
pointed out, DTE still relies on
almost 58% coal to generate the
electricity that we use every day to
power our community.
But
that
doesn’t
tell
the
whole story. Anderson’s speech
reminded listeners that DTE’s
coal reliance was over 80% at
the beginning of his tenure, an
impressive feat that continues
as
DTE
gradually
decreases
their reliance on unsustainable
fossil fuels. Anderson’s tenure at
DTE included helping write the
legislation that became the clean
power provisions in the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) and being
one of the first energy industry
CEOs to commit to retiring coal-
fired generation.
While the implementation of
this goal is not linear, and wanting
these changes more quickly is
valid, tangible change requires
collaboration, feasible solutions
and listening to those with whom
you may disagree. We have to
thank protesters for wanting to
start these dialogues on campus,
despite our differences in how
we believe this change will be
actualized.
What happened at this event
is representative of a greater,
unproductive sentiment within
the environmentalist movement,
especially
on
the
University
of Michigan campus. This is a
sentiment that our club often finds
ourselves falling into: creating
an
artificial
divide
between
environmentalists and business
leaders.
Fostering
division
rather than cooperation within
the
sustainability
community
undermines
the
creation
of
tangible change and the ability to
effectively communicate about
environmental protection.
We believe that business leaders
working through companies to
initiate change is essential to the
environmental movement. Our
club’s aim is to grow a sentiment of
environmentalism which invokes
change from inside the business
world, because ultimately we need
practical business change just as
much as we need motivated and
informed protesters. We believe
that Anderson’s speech perfectly
embodied this goal. Instead of
shying away from unsustainable
industries, we can jump into the
fray and promote real change from
the inside.
Environmentalism in business
requires taking the wheel and
steering towards progress. It is
critical that there are forward-
thinking individuals working hard
to facilitate the necessary change
within
businesses,
which
is
radical in its own way. Demeaning
individuals that are working hard
to make such industries more
environmentally friendly creates
opponents in a common cause.
We’re also realistic that the two
sides of this dialogue aren’t always
going to like each other. We may be
on the same side of the fight for a
better climate future, but we have
very different ideas on how to get
there. Ultimately, it will take us
both to effect change: motivating
change from outside (protesters)
and actualizing this change from
the inside (business). This tension
remains, and in the end, this
event helped us business majors
recognize the types of struggles
we will face from both sides in
our fight for a just transition
to
more
renewable
energy
sources. Anderson’s humble and
dignified response exemplified
for
business
students
how
to
productively
respond
to
criticism,
and
continue
to
persevere for a better future.
How
are
businesspeople
aiming to make a difference?
Let’s use DTE as an example.
Stakeholders
and
investors
want to embrace sustainability
without skyrocketing energy
costs or decreasing reliability
of the grid. Regulatory agencies
like the Michigan Public Service
Commission must approve all
new plans, and stakeholders raise
valid equity concerns about the
existing plans.
There
are
challenges
of
energy storage for renewables,
availability of metal for batteries,
equitability
of
high-cost
renewables and strain on grids
from the increase in electric
cars that magnify the scope of
the
challenges
facing
utility
companies. Creating a thoughtful
and careful long-term strategy
requires consideration of all of
these consequences and more,
and is the type of challenge that
us business students are eager
to tackle. DTE’s 20% decrease in
coal reliance and commitment to
going net zero by 2050 exemplify
successes in this aim.
Opinion
Op-Ed: We believe in the power of
business to do good
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
14 — Wednesday, November 30, 2022
Voter apathy:
The silent killer of democracy
NET IMPACT
Opinion Contributor
O
pinions
can
be
ever
changing
by
nature
of
how
learning
and
understanding
information
works. They are often, however,
hard-wired into us to the point
that they behave as unchangeable
facts and fixed parts of who
we are. This manifests itself in
politics, where steadfast opinions
help maintain our two-party
political system, a system that
reinforces our steadfast opinions.
We exist in a state of circular logic
that perpetuates both political
polarization and unwillingness to
change.
Before discussing more about
the two party system, I feel it is
important to note the makeup of
the University of Michigan and
the city of Ann Arbor. Both are
very much left-leaning in terms of
political ideology. Because of this,
the readership of this article will
likely be left-leaning as well. At
the University, perspectives that
lean left are viewed as cultured
and tolerant, while those that lean
right are perceived negatively
and are associated with hatred,
bigotry and intolerance.
For as much as the right can be
painted as the enemy, both sides of
the spectrum fall victim to similar
traps in which they reconfirm
their own ideals without exposure
to
dissenting
opinions.
This
closed-off environment causes
each party to become an echo
chamber for their respective
ideologies.
LSA senior Lindsay Keiser,
editor in chief of both the
Michigan Journal of Political
Science
and
the
Michigan
Review, spoke to The Michigan
Daily about the effect of echo
chambers on our campus. She told
me that “Michigan is proudly an
echo chamber precisely because
professors perpetuate the leftist
rhetoric … I rarely defend my
beliefs when they’re ridiculed
because, after four years of being
told that valuing laissez-faire
economics and deregulated social
policy makes me an uneducated
bigot, I realized there is no point
in fighting.”
With that said, Keiser did
give credit where credit is due in
acknowledging that many of her
political science professors are
“actually quite unbiased,” even
as many of her earth science,
astronomy and business lectures
tend to be quite “rife with
comments disparaging Trump,
conservatism and laissez-faire
economics.”
It makes complete sense why
political science professors are
most sensitive to using unbiased
rhetoric — they are careful to
avoid
political
bias
because
normative political questions are
intended to be explored implicitly
in the context of the classroom. It
is disappointing that other faculty
and students are often not as
sensitive to partisan rhetoric.
So, what can the University do
to improve? Keiser emphasized
the importance of encouraging
professors “to work as hard as
possible to refrain from making
partisan commentary from the
classroom.” As one of our largest
influences, the knowledge we
obtain in the classroom should not
impose anything upon students
or make certain students feel
unheard or cornered into a certain
view.
Aside
from
the
need
for
improvement
in
some
areas,
there are some places in which
the University does address these
issues very well. For example,
Keiser stated that “the University
is actually quite good at checking
in with right-wing students who
are attacked on campus.” She
mentions the Ford School of Public
Policy as a space for “very mature
conversations about a wide range
of social and economic issues
with diverse perspectives about
the ‘right’ policy solution.” The
School of Public Policy has plenty
of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
resources for reporting incidents
of bias or harassment in any
form, including based on politics.
Though there is a long road to
complete
political
acceptance
and open conversation, this gives
us hope that there are some
resources available to aid in easing
the harsh nature of our political
atmosphere.
Unfortunately, for young people
in Ann Arbor, liberal agendas
have become performative in
many ways. For example, I have
witnessed countless screaming
matches in the Diag — often
relating
to
a
conservative,
sometimes hateful, and liberal
clash of viewpoints — for which
a decent-sized crowd will start to
gather.
With that said, action from the
left — whether it be nationwide
protests or “drama” in the Diag
— is often motivated by feelings
of oppression. In situations of
oppression, vehemence is often
the only way to be heard. Thus,
the
performative
nature
of
left-wing politics is sometimes
entirely valid and could be argued
to be for a better cause than
violence or hate speech from the
right. However, performative left-
wing politics can instill negativity
just in the way the hate-filled
speech of the right does, albeit
differently.
Former
President
Barack Obama reaffirms the left’s
rejection of hateful language in
saying that “we should soundly
reject language coming out of the
mouths of any of our leaders that
feeds a climate of fear and hatred
or normalizes racist sentiments.”
Many
on
the
left
define
themselves by their perceived
moral superiority to the right. To
me, this seems counterintuitive
to everything the left stands for
and why I identify as a liberal.
Tolerance,
education
and
acceptance are all qualities that
drew me to this ideology, not hate
and negativity.
Instead of dwelling in our
echo chambers and hearing our
own opinions repeated back
to us, we should explore what
exactly the right is saying and
why they believe what they do.
Progressivism is about accepting
different backgrounds. For many,
their
background
might
not
have educated them on systemic
racism or LGBTQ+ rights.
How
can
one
really
understand the world by ignoring
a whole section of it? It is not
that everyone has to agree with
what the other side says, but
we do ourselves a disservice
by
alienating
conservatives,
resisting any kind of contact with
them and failing to explore what
that ideology might mean or why
they might hold the views they
do.
The system works to make the
political spectrum appear more
polarized than it really is.
Political binaries on campus:
is there a right and a wrong?
ANNA TRUPIANO
Opinion Columnist
PALAK SRIVASTAVA
Opinion Columnist
Winter woes
Design by Sara Fang
alcohol ink painting by teresa kovalak
Come see what we’ve made for you!
handmade
arts & crafts
by local artisans
juried market
Sundays 11am
-4pm
April ‘til Christmas
Ann Arbor Farmers Market
Pavilion, 315 Detroit St.
Facebook:
Sunday Artisan Market
Instagram:
TheSundayArtisanMarket
WebsIte:
SundayArtisanMarket.org
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com