Upon matriculating to the venerated beatnik establishment known as the University of Michigan, you are unlikely to encounter many conservatives, as Ann Arbor has a strict quota in place.  However, during those rare (and distressing) meetings with young neocons, tea partiers, libertarians, and any other exotic species, one must know how to avoid the classic (un)friendly banter that usually occurs…which brings me to my first tip:

1.   Be ridiculous, stubborn, and a bit of a prick.

I can’t tell you how many times I have been in this conversation:

Conservative: You pussy bleeding heart liberals are all idiots.  How can you possibly agree with _________!?!

Me: Well, I can understand why you disagree with me, but here is my rationale.  I believe that—

Conservative: Shut up, you’re wrong

Me: But you haven’t even heard what I have to say!

Conservative: Don’t need to commie.  Hope you have fun chilling in Russia with Joe Stalin you anti-American jerk

After a while, I tired of attempting to haplessly debate, and adopted the tactics of my foes.  Now, instead of walking away angry, I turn everything into an elementary school shouting match.  Call me a commie?  You’re a fascist that wants nothing short of a Big Brother government.  Republicans hate puppies!  John Boehner wets his bed!

Without fail, I always catch my conservative sparring partner off guard.  If you want to walk away from a political argument victorious, you need to be Joe Wilson, of “YOU LIE!” fame, willing to make a fool of yourself just to get a rise out of your idiot friend who, for some reason, doesn’t understand how dumb he is, but you hang out with him anyway since he’s got a VIP pass to Skeeps.

2.   Lie.  A lot.

A lot of people pull out statistics during debates.  Inexperienced and trusting debaters too often fall for this trick.  Even if the statistic is correct (which it rarely is), it’s easy to fire an equally significant statistic right back.

Conservative: Obamacare will cost this country a bajillion dollars according to the United States Chamber of Commerce, how can you even claim that it is a good idea!?!

Me: Well, according to the JRE, the US economy will grow at a rate of 7.6%/yr over the next decade if we implement the healthcare plan, not to mention the fact that every American family will be given free massages for a year!

I have no idea what the JRE is.  I literally fabricated every word of that sentence (except for the massage part, I read that on MoveOn). If you act confident though, dumb people will believe you.  And believe me, most people you encounter are dumb.

3.   Invoke names and incidents that Republicans have conveniently tried to erase from the collective memory.

Examples:

If I don’t vote conservative will Dick Cheney shoot me in the face?

I was in an airport bathroom the other day, and some dude kept knocking his shoes into me, then I realized it was just Larry Craig’s wide stance!

Todd Akin told me that all vaginas are magic and that they can disarm a robber, is that true?

4.   The Finisher

Did Barack Obama fly to Pakistan, grab Osama by the beard, recite a witty quip (something like “ready or not, here I come!”) and then pop a cap in his ass?  I’m no journalist, but that’s just the way I heard it happened.  Either way, simply shout “Obama found Osama,” turn around, walk away.  And just like that, you have won an argument with a conservative (at least in your own head).

By Andrew Eckhous

I started asking everyone around me about their experience with sexual education in school, and whether their classes discussed sexual assault and consent.  Out of the eleven people that I asked, only two people vaguely remembered discussing anything on these matters.  One person’s 7^th grade class slightly touched on consent, and the other person said their 8^th grade class briefly discussed what a girl should do if she was to ever get raped. (The whole not showering, going to the hospital, getting legal proof thing is a whole different topic. Maybe another time.)

When I asked a friend if her school taught kids NOT to rape, she didn’t understand the question.  “Why? That’s just implied”. But is it? In theory we draw a very distinct line between good and bad people; those who could rape, and the ones who couldn’t.  But when an actual sexual assault occurs, the line starts to blur.  It is blamed on miscommunications, alcohol, the slutty girl who was asking for it, and numerous other excuses.  Although those can all be factors that influence the situation, they do not lessen the severity of an assault.

Why is rape an untouchable subject in schools? How do you teach a child NOT to rape?  “Kids, this is what a penis looks like, and this is a vagina. Now remember, don’t touch anyone else’s penis or vagina unless they give you permission”. This very serious lesson can be boiled down to a more simplified version that is easier for children to digest.  “It’s not ok to touch someone or kiss them or do anything to them unless they give you permission”.

Why is it necessary to teach kids not to steal, not to lie, not to bully, but not about sexual assault? Why do we assume that kids inherently understand these rights and wrongs?  Because only a monster would rape someone?  What about forcing himself or herself onto someone?  What about pressuring someone into doing things?  What about persuading someone?  Once you change the wording from rape to persuasion, it doesn’t seem like such a monstrous farfetched act anymore, does it?

Rape culture begins with the way kids are taught, or not taught, about sexual assault. The shame and victim blaming that occurs can be lessened, if not prevented, by teaching people what to do. Not just kids, but adults need to be taught too. By introducing sexual assault education into school sexual education curriculums, hopefully we can put a dent in rape culture and switch the focus from ‘how to avoid getting raped’ to ‘how to not rape’.

In 1906, the German sociologist Werner Sombart published an essay called, “Why is there no Socialism in the United States?” in which he tried to address a question that had puzzled political thinkers for decades: why did European labor movements adopt socialist goals (like the overthrow of the capitalist system and the nationalization of property, for instance) while US labor, by and large, shied away from them?  This perception of a Euro-American divide over the question of socialism persists to this day.  Many Americans proudly see the US as the land where capitalism has flourished most and Europe as a continent marked by nationalized healthcare systems and Scandinavian social democracies.  That the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc crumbled only two decades ago makes it inevitable that these perceptions are often tinged with scorn or fear as well.  In that line of thought, many Americans are happy to see no socialism in their history or in their present world.  Socialism was the Soviet Union, a decadent Europe, a threat to freedom and prosperity.

Many thinkers before and after Sombart have tried to answer the titular question of his essay, attempting to figure out what about America is antithetical to socialism.  But others have taken a different tack: they argue that socialist movements and policies have indeed played key roles in US history since the country’s inception.  And in a recent blog post at Jacobin—Wage-Slavery and Republican Liberty—Alex Gourevitch argues that homegrown socialist movements emerged in the United States relatively early and that the ideas that animated their vision and political action were simply extensions of the principles of liberty and justice at work in the American Revolution.

To explain this, we need to understand what Gourevitch calls the “neo-Roman” or “republican theory of liberty,” the idea that “we are unfree when we are subject to another person’s will.”  This idea not only applies to monarchical systems or slave-based societies but also, says Gourevitch (and others), to capitalism, in which the working class is “free” only to sell its labor but otherwise dependent on economic classes and forces that dominate its life.  The result was, to borrow a term from Marx, “wage-slavery.”  Gourevitch argues that this idea was important in Marx’s thinking, but that it was

<blockquote>not just Marx or even primarily Marx who believed that the neo-Roman theory of freedom leads directly to a critique of wage-slavery. As early as the late 1820s, urban workers seized on the inherited republicanism of the American Revolution and applied it to the wage-labor relationship. They organized themselves city-by-city into the first self-conscious political parties of labor and their main campaign was against ‘wage-slavery.’</blockquote>

These workers recognized that their “only chance of leading a decent life was if some employer would give them a job. Though formally free, these workers were nonetheless economically dependent and thus unfree.”  On the basis of this analysis, these workers called for the “equal distribution of property.”  But while critics of leftist thinking often parody this idea as meaning that everyone should have exactly the same income or house and that individuality must in all ways be stifled, these movements argued for equal control of the “means of production”—i.e., a more equitable distribution of land and cooperative control over the corporate capital, factories, and the management of economic life more generally.  They weren’t calling for full state control of the economy, which can indeed lead to new forms of domination.  And they didn’t want to achieve their goals by “violent revolution but [by] a state constitutional convention in which all property would be nationalized and then redistributed in shares of equal value to be used to form cooperatives or buy land.” Ultimately, they saw capitalists’ monopoly control over these economic factors as the root of “wage-slavery” and believed that by gaining a real say in—i.e., real control over—their economic world, they could overcome this domination.

In other words, they were calling for a democratization of American economic life.  It’s here that Gourevitch sees these movements, which evolved and shifted over the course of the 19^th century but throughout maintained this core principle, as affirming and expanding the core republican principles of liberty that lay behind the American Revolution.  If the Revolution sought to eliminate domination in political life, these workers sought to eliminate it in economic life as well.  According to Gourevitch, this was to them the true fulfillment of American values.  Nothing could be more American than socialism.

I think Gourevitch’s article is really valuable—it dispels some stereotypes and misunderstandings of what “socialism” is and its role in US history—but I have two critiques.  First, I’m not sure Gourevitch should embrace the term “wage-slavery” so easily.  It was used first by these workers movements as a political slogan, as a way to draw attention to the fact that capitalist domination was just as unacceptable and violently dominating as slavery.  Unacceptable, yes, but “wage-slavery” and slavery as it was practiced in the US were two very different phenomena, and there were ways in which actual slavery was way more brutal and totalizing than wage-slavery.  To conflate the two is, I think, intellectually dishonest and confuses our understanding of the two institutions and how people responded to them.

I’m also a little skeptical of how easily Gourevitch embraces the linear thinking of those he studies–namely, the idea that the American Revolution almost logically implied these socialist movements.  He doesn’t quite say as much, but it’s very clear from the article that he’s sympathetic to these arguments.  Don’t get me wrong—I am, too!  But he doesn’t acknowledge that the American Revolution was both manifold—it involved a variety of actors with just as many political agendas and goals—and dominated by figures like the “Founding Fathers,” who were generally well-placed in the early capitalist economy and by and large fearful of “the mob.”  These were the people who only made one of the houses of Congress electable by popular vote and failed to abolish slavery.  Most, if not all, were not radicals, and I doubt they would have been fans of these socialist movements.

But I think these criticisms are pretty minor, and I think, too, that these movements’ arguments highlight a central contradiction in the thought and action of folks like the Founding Fathers: if we are against domination in the political realm, we ought to be against it in all aspects of our lives, including the economic realm.  Whatever form it takes, wherever it happens, such domination is unacceptable and to be opposed.  If we understand socialism as economic democracy and freedom, and if we take the republican theory of liberty to be central to the American spirit, then socialism is indeed as American as apple pie.

By: Aaron Bekemeyer

(Photo courtesy of Toban B. under a creative commons license)

*In June 2012, Michigan passed House Bill 4393 which protects underage consumers of alcohol in the event they voluntarily submit to medical treatment for any of the above reasons.

Find out more at csg.umich.edu/medicalamnesty

As an undergraduate student, Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) are some – if not the most – powerful people when it comes to academics.  Professors go through a much more intensive hiring process and are more knowledgeable (usually).  However, GSIs control your grade.  Going to office hours with professors is nice for future recommendation letters and stimulating conversation.  However, for the sake of your GPA, the most helpful person to talk to is your GSI.

GSIs determine participation grades, papers on grades, and sometimes even test grades.  Depending on the format of the class, they may have more or less pull on your grade; but overall, they have more power than a professor.  If you develop a better relationship with a GSI, they are more likely to grade you positively. But unlike a professor or a course, it is hard to choose which GSI you get.

I am in my 4^th semester at the university, and so far the classes that I learned the most from and enjoyed the most were due to good GSIs.  As a freshman I was lucky enough (I hate the word luck and but in this case, it was actually based on pure luck) to have GSIs who pushed me to analyze the material thoroughly and constructively criticized my writing skills. Although my High School placed a great emphasis on analytic thinking and prepared me well, by the end of each course I noticed a significant difference in the level of complexity in my thinking and the strength of my arguments.

Unfortunately, this year I have been less fortunate with my GSIs.  As an undergraduate student in an interdisciplinary program, I find it unnerving when GSIs present arguments that would be deemed weak and insufficient in an 100 level intro political science class.

Which brings me to my current frustration.  Recently, one of my GSIs led a discussion on a topic in which he later admitted to me that he had very little background in.  I understand that many GSIs get thrown into topics that they have little background in.  However, I always thought that when it came to a comment that I found offensive and culturally insensitive I would say something.  In reality, I sat in discussion, physically biting down on my tongue and fuming to avoid blowing up and calling my GSI an idiot.  In retrospect, I am very disappointed in myself and wish that I had composed myself enough to respectfully point out why his last comment was culturally insensitive and does not belong in a discussion on international human rights.  Instead, I thought about how I haven’t participated very much in discussion yet, and really need that 15% of my grade to be an A.

To hear my GSI (who is a professor from another university) repeatedly refer to religious head coverings as headgear was infuriating enough.  However, he went on to accept the suggestion made by a student that this “headgear” allows women to live a low maintenance lifestyle; the logic was that women who wear “headgear” cannot afford shampoo and conditioner like women can in the United States!

If one of my friends who had never taken a religious studies or history course ever said anything like this, I would be angry. However, I would understand that they have never had exposure to the culture of an Islamic society and would take the time to educate them about the issue.

However, for my GSI to express this opinion in an International Studies course, that’s unacceptable!

Once I had time to compose myself, I stayed after class to talk to the GSI.  Unfortunately, I did not have the guts to tell him how offended and disappointed I was of his insensitivity.  Instead I hinted at a desire for a more open discussion of the issue in order to educate those without a basic background of the topic.

What do you do when you know that what your GSI is saying is completely wrong? Do you correct them and risk affecting your grade? Or keep your mouth shut for the sake of your GPA?

By: Sara Yufa

(Photo courtesy of kedondeng under a creative commons license)

There is a lot to talk about from Detroit this week, but as the title reveals I have chosen the Emergency Financial Manager (EFM) for the topic of this post.

Detroit continues its slow march down, reaching new levels of failure.  Friday, Governor Snyder announced (barring the appeal of the city’s current political leadership) that the City would receive an emergency financial manager.  Many saw this coming and much debate has been had about what is the most effective strategy for moving the city forward, but I will argue this: it is not what an emergency manager does during their term here, but rather how citizens of the city choose to react to his or her presence that will define whether or not Detroit proves itself ready to rise from the ashes.

Let’s start with the basics: what is an emergency financial manager?

An emergency financial manager is an official appointed by the state to run a financially troubled local government.  A local government is determined to be financially troubled by a review board of state officials and appointees.  The financial manager essentially has the power to cut or sell off portions of the government, change wages, and restructure an entire local government as long as they don’t pass any laws or levy any taxes.   Here are some quick answers on more detailed aspects.

If you are up on your Michigan politics, you might be wondering “didn’t we do away with all this in the last election?”  You’re partially right.   Prop 1 on the November 2012 ballot nullified Public Act 4 of 2011 the “Emergency Manger” law.  The catch was that Public Act 4 was only an updated version of an earlier law, Public Act 72 of 1990 or the “Emergency Financial Manager” law.   The key difference between the two being that the 2011 law eliminated the word “financial” and increased the powers of the manager to allow them to dissolve collective bargaining rights.   Thus, the emergency managers across the state are upheld by this law.

Enough with the history, let’s consider the ramifications of this move.  Governor Snyder has asked that an emergency manger be put in charge of the City of Detroit for the next 18 months, after which a second financial review will be held to determine whether or not the position should continue. The names of the other local governments that have been taken over by financial managers are well known to those tuned into the news: namely Benton Harbor, Ecourse, Pontiac, and the Detroit Public Schools. In all these cases, aside from Ecourse, there has not been the rapid and sweeping financial change that was envisioned by the law. Emergency managers have instead struggled with much of the same issues that policy makers have while consolidating power and limiting the influence of public officials.

The arguments for and against an emergency manager go on: by some it is viewed as the only way to stave off an economic plague that may infect the state, while others view it is as shaking the very foundation upon which our democracy stands.   Unfortunately, for Detroit, these arguments are now moot. The train is on its way, and all we can do is get ready for it to arrive.

The question now turns to how to react.   The notion that an EFM will shake the core of our democracy is not unfounded.   In the cities in which managers have been put in place there has been a noticeable decrease in democratic activity of community groups and other organizing forces around local politics.  If you think about it, why should they stick around? There is no political power to sway.  The person in charge is not subject to their local elections.  What incentive do they have?

It is for this reason that now, more than ever, Detroit’s citizens hold the future of their city in their hands.  The loss of political control of our city with the implementation of this manager is the ultimate slap in the face.   However, as we scrape the bottom of the barrel for money, we find the key to our rebirth.  By the simple act of finding a way to claim this city back from this state appointed officials we have the opportunity to not simply redefine how the city is viewed by outsiders and the state, but also define a new sense of hope and purpose within the hearts of its citizens.   This will not be done by the typical blame games and quick fixes.  Instead, Detroit must own up to the failures of its past leaders, be the bigger man, stop blaming anyone else for its woes, and grab hold of its future.  I applaud the City Council’s contest of the EFM (even though I think it is likely to fail) for at least they are saying in a loud voice “We are still here” while our outgoing mayor seems content to lay with the Governor.   Now all we need is plan to back it up…

By: Matthew Friedrichs

(Image courtesy of wxyz.com)

With leading publications painting vastly different pictures of the United States economy, I feel it’s important to offer a clear perspective towards the current macroeconomic situation.

Recently, the Federal Open Market Committee held a discussion focused on its security purchasing program known as “Quantitative Easing”. Currently, the Fed purchases Treasury securities (also known as Government Bonds) and mortgage-backed securities to the tune of $85 billion a month in an effort to spur lending and improve the US job market. However, this program has faced internal and external dissent as many argue that the Fed is increasing the risk of uncontrollable inflation while promoting excessive risk-taking by the financial sector.

So why does the Fed continue to pour money into this program?

To answer that question, we need to understand a bit of recent US economic history. In 2002, the United States economy looked very similar to the way it does today. An asset bubble had burst while the average US consumer was sunk in debt. This sort of environment created deflationary pressure as the demand for goods and services shrunk.

At this time, the Fed was led by Alan Greenspan; and despite the revisionist history of recent years, Greenspan faced a very serious problem. Knowing that monetary policy was ineffective at fighting deflation, Greenspan slashed interest rates by pumping money into the banking system. This program worked effectively as the financial sector recognized a new opportunity for lending – real estate. As a result, a new asset bubble emerged as the financial sector took on excessive amounts of risk in an effort to reap outsized profits. Then 2008 happened…

Now US consumers are stretched even thinner as individual debt levels reach unprecedented heights. Furthermore, there appears to be no asset bubble in sight to alleviate the burden of insurmountable debt; and even if there was an asset bubble to be exploited, new banking regulation and oversight has effectively deterred financial institutions from taking on risk. Hence, the arguments made by opponents of the Fed’s current purchasing program seem unjustified in this climate. There is little chance of inflation in the coming years as consumers are denied access to credit. Also, bank’s have shown that they are unwilling to take on “excessive risk” in this economic environment. As a result, the US economy is stuck in a standstill.

In my opinion, the only way to return to normalcy is through a return to growth. However, we need to be very careful when describing growth. I am not suggesting that the US economy needs another asset bubble. Rather, the US needs to produce goods and services that are valued at home and abroad. Furthermore, the private sector will need tremendous help from the government. This moment in history offers a great opportunity to tackle some of the world’s most pressing problems. Government initiatives that integrate the ideas of sustainability and progress into the equation for economic growth will prove to better the circumstance of everyone.

By: Jeremy Lash

(Photo courtesy of Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy under a creative commons license)

Peter Thiel, who wants to pay you to drop out of college and become an entrepreneur.

Last week I was reading (via Rod Dreher) Thierry Malleret’s “Disequilibrium,” an essay released by The Broswer and an abbreviation of Malleret’s arguments in a book by the same name.  Malleret basically sums up his core argument with this quote: “With the world becoming ever more susceptible to shocks, the global risk landscape is now dominated by sharp discontinuities. Our world is changing everywhere, radically, very fast and in multiple intersecting ways that lend themselves to constant surprises. There is now no place to hide from the turbulence, the challenges and the uncertainties.”

Let’s look at that last sentence in particular.  There are all sorts of troubling things about it, but think about this proposal to combine “old age and entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship is something of a fetish for some when thinking about how to revive the economy or address certain social or cultural problems.  Just think about how many times you’ve heard politicians talk about tax credits and special visas and a whole host of other breaks and bonuses for entrepreneurs, as though they are the most potent motor of the economy and will save the world if only we give them the chance to put their ideas to work.  At least three issues of Consider have dealt with the topic, most recently on 1000 Pitches—the organization that, I’m sure, is not the first to broadcast you messages about the importance of the entrepreneur, from Mary Sue’s office to other student groups to the Business School itself.

There’s something that’s always struck me as a little ridiculous about all this fuss.  To be clear, I’m not “anti-entrepreneur,” and I think putting structures in place that make entrepreneurial risk-taking more attractive and entrepreneurial failure less punishing is a great thing.  (A universal basic income (UBI) wouldn’t be a bad place to start.)  I’m not going to try to disentangle where this preoccupation with entrepreneurs comes from—brighter minds than I have already taken a stab at that—but I do want to point out, quite simply, that entrepreneurship is not the foundation on which to build our hopes for a secure and prosperous future.  Entrepreneurs are always a minority, people who decide that, rather than remaining within the proletariat or climbing the management ladder or seeking a professional career, they would prefer to strike out on their own, to try something new and see if they can make some money by implementing their own ideas.  The vast majority of them will not make out like Bill Gates did; there’s a huge degree of risk involved, and many, many efforts will not pan out.  In this light, to propose entrepreneurship as part of the solution to a rapidly changing, risk-filled world comes off as extremely silly.  We ought to rest our hopes for stability and security not on the chancy success of entrepreneurs but on the society-wide structures and programs that alone are capable of providing those things—think anything from food stamps to a UBI.

I don’t think government policy or large-scale business strategy ever actually relies on entrepreneurs to accomplish important things, but you wouldn’t know it if you listened to the many politicians, pundits, and cultural prophets who blab on about those messianic risk-takers of capitalism.  Again, the point is not to knock actual entrepreneurs, who, with good ideas, hard work, and a lot of good luck, are capable of genuinely bettering our lives.  But it would be more useful (and more interesting!) to talk about the groups and institutions that actually hold the reins of social power—the state and the business class, to name two of the big ones.  In this respect, the entrepreneur is a distraction and an illusion.

By: Aaron Bekemeyer

(Photo by TechCrunch50-2008 under a Creative Commons License)

Last Tuesday was the State of the Union address.

I was confident everyone was aware of this until I was sitting in a lecture the following Thursday and my professor asked how many students watched the address. Of the approximate 200 students in the lecture hall only six raised their hands, and more than a few gave their friend a befuddled look– likely embarrassed they had no idea what the professor was talking about.

My roommates and I flipped back and forth between the Michigan basketball game and the State of the Union last Tuesday evening, and I’ll admit that for most of the night the game won over our attention. This is even when we were getting slaughtered by MSU. In control of the remote control, I am just as guilty as my classmates. I won’t get on my soapbox and scold my fellow peers and friends to perform their civic duty and watch the State of the Union when, I, too, all of a sudden find myself disinterested in politics. It is a surprising thing for me to recognize and admit this after I was so involved and invested in the presidential election. Like my fellow Americans,  I watched the debates, voted, and stayed up late on November 6^th waiting with baited breath to see if Obama would continue to run our country. And then just like that, it was over and by the time the State of the Union on February 12^th rolled around, I didn’t even have the interest to listen to see if Obama was going to deliver on what he promised in his campaign.

Over the past week I’ve reflected on my recent disinterest in politics and tried to determine whether it’s just me and my classmates in my Thursday class. Asking around I found that, similar to my roommates and I, zero of the six girls in the apartment above me solely watched the State of the Union. One out of 12 of our next-door neighbors watched, and 0 of 10 of my coworkers at the Michigan Daily tuned in, which is similar to one of the six staff writers at Consider Magazine. So then, it appears it isn’t just me. And ratings illustrate that it isn’t just Michigan students either. Tuesday’s State of the Union address had the fewest of any viewers since 2000. So, why the national disinterest? Why does it feel like politics are taking the backseat after sitting center stage for a majority of 2012?

I would argue that Americans today feel disillusioned with government and how much Barack Obama is realistically capable of accomplishing. With extremist politics currently running the show, the American people are starting to understand that even if Obama is an activist president, the Republican-controlled House is not going to be willing to let him push anything through. For the past two and a half years we’ve watched Congress freeze Obama and now, I am starting to lose faith that Congress and our president will ever see eye to eye and work on an agreement. So then, why watch? Why hear about Obama’s grand plans that House Majority Leader Boehner will guarantee to veto? I, personally, would rather watch an embarrassing loss to Michigan State than an embarrassing speech from a president who likely knows how little a chance he has at actual activism.

One of my more politically active friends, Sam Birnbaum, offered similar sentiments.. Sam did watch the SOTU address, still, he was the only one in his apartment to show any interest. He explained to me that he believes his friends, along with many of his other classmates, feel a distinct disconnect from politics at this point in the year. Ever since November, politics has lost its glamour and now as students, we feel too far away from the government and feel almost unaffected. Sam agreed with me that the stalemate in Congress hasn’t helped matters because now students have little optimism over anything successfully getting done. When I asked if he thought there was any solution to this current problem or whether he saw an end in sight, he said he felt that as long as elected officials are more focused on keeping their job than helping explain sensible policy to citizens and how it affects them then the current trend in political cynicism may extend indefinitely longer.

It’s hard to be a college student right now and wonder what’s next. We’ve grown up in history classrooms learning the success stories of our democratic government, and now, all of a sudden, it feels more difficult to see the light at the end of a dark, economically-stressed, gridlocked tunnel. Although it is tempting to disconnect ourselves from politics and wander blissfully unaware, I believe it’s important we resist that path. If we truly want to see change, we must continue to stay politically educated and work for what we believe in. I, myself, need to remember that a true democracy is about its people and thus, we must hold up our end of the deal and stay involved, even when the situation seems incorrigible. After all, feeling powerless is different than being powerless.

A few weeks ago, my friends and I were debating the legality of the increased security policies used by airports.  I had never thought twice about the full body scans and luggage X-rays that I and all other passengers are subject to before we board a flight. I consider these to be necessary methods of safety, especially after the events of September 11^th.  However, my strong-minded friend argued that these revealing body scans are a complete invasion of privacy.  Because of this, he refuses the scan at airports and opts for a pat down by the security guard. This of course is done as a protest rather than for comfort, as a pat down is almost undeniably more invasive than an X-ray.

While I largely disagreed with my friend, his protection of his personal rights got me thinking about how far our country can and will go to keep its people safe.  This question is particularly pertinent this year, as gun violence has seemingly increased and is at the forefront of political debate in our country.  I will typically support a policy that aims to strengthen public safety, but in a country that is very sensitive about the horrendous acts in Milwaukee, Aurora, and Newtown, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable symbolic speech, which I’ll define for the purpose of this article as a form of speech communicated by nonverbal actions.

A prime example of this indistinguishable symbolic speech was demonstrated in Ann Arbor this past week on Valentines Day.  The crime report describes an engineering student at U of M who thought it would be funny (for reasons unapparent to me) to wear a gas mask and army pants while holding an empty ammunition pack.  He also wore a sign around his neck with a picture of the “Grumpy Cat” meme that is popular on the Internet.  Having seen this student walking out of Angel Hall, I can say that it was no mistake confusing him as a security threat.  Though only his clothes were suggestive of violence, this is one of those instances where you can truly never be too careful.  With that said, I was glad to hear that someone took the initiative of informing the police and that the issue was addressed.

The first thing I question in this case is who in their right mind would think this is a funny thing to do?  However, it is more useful to ask how our country, whether it is the government, public schools, or the police, will react to these types of situations in the future.  There have been countless instances where schools overreact to students’ symbolic speech and punish them for it.  In one recent, extreme case, a high school student was suspended for merely choosing a picture of a gun as his laptop screensaver.  Though I support schools taking an active approach to eliminate gun violence, punishing this student strikes me as absurd as he posed no actual threat to the safety of the school.

I realize that I might sound two-faced, but it is probably because these situations are so difficult to judge.  On the one hand, we want to prevent gun violence at all costs, but, on the other hand, we do not want to deprive people of their basic, human rights such as symbolic speech that our courts have upheld time and time again.  Unfortunately, it appears that in order to protect our beloved country, we must remove some of the freedoms on which it was founded.

By: Robbie Linden

(Photo courtesy of elfsternberg under a creative commons license)