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

