Elizabeth Bennet from Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” is, according to Caroline Bingley, “one of those young ladies who seek to recommend themselves to the other sex by undervaluing their own; and with many men.” Her narration continues by saying that “it succeeds. But, in my opinion, it is a paltry device, a very mean art.”

Never mind the fact that Miss Bingley constantly vyes for the attention of Mr. Darcy throughout the novel. Never mind the fact that Elizabeth steals Mr. Darcy’s heart by being herself and remaining protective of her sister. If there’s one thing you must take away from “Pride and Prejudice,” perhaps it’s this: The so-called “pick-me girl,” and a mocking thereof, has existed for at least 200 years.

I’ve been online long enough to remember when posts proclaiming “I’m not like other girls” were earnest, and I can just as well remember when these posts became the butt of the joke — but I cannot believe that in 2023 we are still having the same discussion about these types of girls that we were having years ago.

A girl who is “not like other girls,” also called an “NLOG,” refers to girls who see themselves as different and often superior to the rest of her gender. An NLOG may claim that makeup or fashion are “fake” or “too girly,” may hang out with only guys because “girls are too dramatic” or just put down something they regard as traditionally feminine and therefore unlikeable.

Here I must also make a distinction between an NLOG and a “pick-me.” “Pick-me,” or “PMAB,” originates from Twitter’s #TweetLikeAPickMe and describes the idea of “wifey” material. A “pick-me” demonstrates her traditional femininity and submissiveness and puts down other women in order to attract male attention. 

The “pick-me” stereotype and a sarcastic quotation of “I’m not like other girls” often go hand in hand, but there is a slight difference between the two. Just as a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square, a “pick-me” is an NLOG but an NLOG is not inherently a pick-me. In order to reach the goal of being picked, a “pick-me” must differentiate herself from “other girls.” An NLOG, on the other hand, may not have this goal in mind — they may just simply feel different from other girls.

Here’s the thing: I was a bit of a “not like other girls” girl. I assume that probably every other girl I have known was one as well. This is because the reasoning for NLOG behavior is far more complicated than just the desire for male validation.

Do you remember walking through the toy aisles when you were younger? Do you remember the stark divide between pink and blue, between Barbies and baby dolls and Hot Wheels and Legos? Maybe you, like me, enjoyed the color pink or the Disney princesses or wearing pretty dresses, but you probably didn’t love that you could only choose those specific items. 

From an early age, us girls were given an often one-dimensional depiction of femininity and womanhood. Women were meant to look effortlessly flawless, never ugly but also never vain. Women were meant to be gentle and supportive, never aggressive or bossy. As we grew older, we were continually fed these stereotypical messages along with the contradictory ideas that overly feminine women were vapid or cruel. We were taught that there was a fine line between too much and too little femininity, and we had to figure out that balance on our own in order to be respected and “one of the good ones.”

This debacle really comes to a head when middle and high school come around. In a time where everyone is going through puberty and managing the steps from adolescence to adulthood, young girls — and young people in general — are also facing identity crises. As teenagers struggle to figure out who they are as individuals, there’s the added pressure of defining one’s gender identity in an individualistic and misogynistic society.

When I was in middle school and considered myself to be “not like other girls,” it wasn’t really for any sort of male validation, but more so the fact that I felt a true sense of difference. In a pretty conservative town, I was still coming to terms with my queer identity when there were few people that were open about their non-cishet identities. To me, “other girls” were the ones outing me before I was ready or calling bisexuality a grab for attention. Of course, I was like other girls — most girls — for feeling this insecurity about not fitting in one way or another in a time when a sense of belonging matters more than ever.

Though it began with good intentions, the criticism over the NLOG phenomenon is often flawed. For one, it ignores the pressure on women to fulfill a certain expectation of womanhood. While femininity has long been subject to male and female mockery, it’s just as true that refusing to conform in a distinctive way means facing equal or even greater scrutiny. At the end of the day, women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Queer women, women of Color, disabled women and generally any women who are denied inclusion or have no interest in Western beauty ideals have been mocked for their own self expression for centuries. The NLOG narrative that women who aren’t traditionally feminine are the ones putting down those who are does not paint a full picture. Internalized misogyny is a two way street coming from both ends of the femininity spectrum, and we certainly don’t become better feminists when we start commenting on a teen girl’s TikTok that she’s “giving pick-me energy.”

We’ve known it for a while; there’s really no right way to be a woman. If I do my makeup, it’s to look more attractive for a man. If I don’t, I’m just trying to impress one by pretending I’m “one of the guys.” There’s no perfect way to be a woman because every action I take is immediately presumed to be done for male attention, not for myself.

It’s unfortunate that what was once a helpful criticism of the reductive roles laid out for women by a patriarchal society has now become fodder for ridiculing young women and girls — and what do we have to show for it when it only furthers the feeling of being ostracized? At a certain point, this call-out behavior is just as performative as the pick-me behavior being criticized.

When it comes down to it, the “other girl” and the NLOG are only stereotypes. Girls, women and people are multifaceted, and we are bound together by what we share in common and ought to celebrate the things that make us different. Dress as much or as little like a Barbie doll as you please. Spend hours on your makeup, or spend no time at all. Embrace the things that make you different, and find joy in connecting over what you share with others. Be as much like other girls as you wish, but don’t hold yourself back from being yourself for yourself.

Audra M. Woehle is an Opinion Columnist who writes about gender and sexuality in popular culture. She can be reached at awoehle@umich.edu.

The post All girls were “not like other girls” appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

I spent the first five years of my life in Damascus, Syria. I can still remember the late nights in restaurants, which often held a game room for children and hookahs for anyone who was interested. If you are going to go out to eat in Syria, expect to stay out for at least four to five hours. You are going to get appetizers, fun drinks like a good mint lemonade, dessert, fruit between courses and end the night with multiple cups of tea and coffee. Often, my cousins (or anyone who was around my age in the room) and I would ask the waiters for a deck of cards, or we would bring our own — we’d make our side of the table an ultimate card tournament. 

Even though my family moved to the United States when I was young, I still remember those nights and felt the ultimate culture shock when we would go to restaurants here. Everything felt rushed, and it was as if everyone was expected to get up and leave as soon as their food was done. The “Are you ready for the bill?” and “Is there anything else I can get you” all felt passive aggressive and like a signal for us to leave. It’s something I got used to, but whenever my family traveled outside of the United States to Europe or back to the Middle East, I found that initial comfort in restaurants again. 

It’s no secret that servers in the food industry are largely underpaid in the United States. In Michigan, the tipped minimum wage is $3.85. In comparison, the minimum hourly wage in Michigan is $10.10. As a result, servers heavily depend on tips in lieu of the hourly wage they are given by their employers. More customers mean more opportunities for tips, and thus these restaurants are more inclined to seat as many people as possible. I fully understand the rush, as these workers are fighting to earn a livable wage. But, there is something inherently wrong in the method in which restaurant workers are forced to fight for their living. 

A server in the United States makes an average of $100 in tips everyday; however, the amount each server makes is heavily reliant on the location of the restaurant, its tip distribution system and the generosity of its customers each day. For nearly someone’s entire wage to rely on how nice or “fair” people are is frightening and flawed. Maybe I’m a bit of a cynical person who tends to fear the worst of people, but I’ve seen enough horror stories where servers are tipped cents and way less than 10% to fully believe that customers are a reliable source of income. I also don’t enjoy choking over the first few bites of my food to assure my server, “Yes the food is good, and no I don’t need anything else right now.” 

Some of the most effective ways for servers to make higher tips is proven to be through flirting with customers. Fliptable suggests servers to “smile more,” “wear something in your hair,” “go the extra mile” and “compliment your customers” as proven ways to get more money. Servers are more inclined to appeal to customers personally so that they empathize with the server and want to give them more money. You’re getting played every time you go out to eat because it is within their job description and is necessary for them to make a living.  

The United States is relatively unique with its tip expectations, as many countries in the world do not expect customers to tip. Countries like Australia, Belgium and Denmark have a service charge embedded within the price of the restaurant that will be a certain percentage of your bill. If this service charge was embedded in the United States restaurant industries, it would ensure equity among servers and place less pressure on them to go to extreme lengths to get a good tip.

Of course, the U.S. has its superior food-related qualities. If there is one thing that makes me bleed red, white and blue, it’s the taste of a greasy American burger from a fast food restaurant that reeks of fryers going. The United States is the origin of fast food chains, where McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Burger King and KFC started their journey. Drive-thrus were invented here. Fast food was created as a concept to serve more customers more frequently, with a standardized menu and assembly lines to streamline the process. Eating fast seems to be the American way, and I can’t complain at all when a good burger is the solution to all my problems on any given day.   

Fast food culture is essential to the American identity, and I agree that not all food should be expected to be some sit down affair. Fast food workers are not considered tipped workers, though they are entitled to receive tips. They must receive at least the standard minimum wage, and tips are not allowed to be counted as part of that wage. These places are designed for the rush and constant stream of customers, while in comparison, restaurants create an illusion of leisure and environment for customers to indulge in. However, when these customers are expected to leave within 10 minutes of finishing their food, the rush is a social norm imposed on them.

All food service in the U.S. is inherently fast food; however, countries across the globe are displaying the flaws in this speedy service when they treat their staff better and provide them with a living wage. These standards, in comparison to the uniquely American way, create stability among servers and allow customers to spend more time in restaurants, prolonging the enjoyable experience of dining out. 

I grew up in suburban Michigan, where stores and restaurants close at 10 p.m., and any nightlife only existed at bars, clubs and late-night sports games. I loved when we would travel back to the Middle East and the day wouldn’t begin until late afternoon, and we would stay out until 1 or 2 a.m. with our whole family. Restaurants were where we met up with others and enjoyed hours together. Sometimes, my cousins and I would leave the restaurant to walk around for a while before returning for the next course, a normal act in our dining culture. I’m nostalgic for those nights, and I will never feel the same joy in restaurants here that I do overseas.

Slowing down dining may not completely change American culture, but it could lessen the pressure on servers and provide families with an opportunity to elongate a night out together. Servers deserve a guaranteed living wage, and children should get the opportunity to experience the thrill of a card game tournament in a restaurant. By standardizing service charges in bills and opening restaurants for longer, servers can make more money with less stress, and families can have places to go together past 8 p.m. There’s no need to rush. 

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist writing about campus culture and her everyday musings. She can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu.

The post What’s the rush? Slow down American dining appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

I often get asked the question, “So, a vegetarian doesn’t eat meat, but what exactly do you mean by ‘vegan’?” My go-to answer is a pretty standard definition: As a vegan, I do not intentionally consume any animal products. My well-intentioned interlocutor usually follows up by asking how long I’ve been vegan (a little over a year) and, less frequently, why I cut meat, eggs and milk from my diet. I respond with a handful of reasons: the environment, sometimes health benefits and always animal suffering. The conversation ends with a predictable “I could never go vegan, but I’ve had some really good fake meat!”

Vegan options are mushrooming around campus, the country and the world. According to a survey published in January by the Plant Based Foods Association, one out of five restaurants in the United States has a vegan designation on its menu, a 98% growth over the last four years. As more people opt for dairy alternatives, some major cafés like Blue Bottle Coffee and Stumptown Coffee Roasters have made oat milk the default option for their drinks, and most restaurants serve at least a bean burger (the bun of which is not necessarily free of animal products). The dining halls almost always offer acceptable-to-exceptional dishes of tofu, hearty salads and greasy fries.

It’s exciting to see the vast array of plant-based options available to everyone who wants them, vegetarians, vegans and meat-eaters alike. Many people will add a vegan protein to plates with sides of animal products, a choice that I firmly support. The vegan diet no longer consists solely of plain lettuce and brown rice; it is now a family of foods that can accommodate diverse lifestyles, allergies and regimens, ranging from the keto diet to convenience food.

As such, a plant-based diet is easier than one would imagine, and when asked, I always mention that I don’t find it difficult or inconvenient. In fact, in some ways, I actually find it easier to be vegan than vegetarian. For example, most regular, dairy-based cheeses contain an ingredient called rennet, an enzyme that helps the cheese set properly, which comes from the stomachs of young ruminant animals including cows, goats and sheep. Because rennet is a part of an animal’s body, they must die to provide it, so many vegetarians don’t consider the product acceptable and instead scour their supermarkets for cheeses with enzymes derived from plants or microbes. 

Personally, I do not buy cheese. If I want the experience, I opt for non-dairy cheese that does not contain any animal products, let alone an animal’s stomach lining. While I’ll admit that traditional cheese has a very specific taste and texture that fake cheese rarely achieves, I’ve gotten used to it and found brands that I like. And besides, I don’t eat much cheese (or “cheeze”) anymore anyway. Furthermore, just ditching meat without reconsidering cheese and omelets doesn’t avoid many of the problems with animal farming.

The problem with a vegetarian diet, then, is moral inconsistency. On both ethical and environmental grounds, non meat animal products perpetuate harm. The dairy and egg industries cause just as much death and suffering as beef and poultry do. The conditions for almost all productive animals are far from humane, even in the case of so-labeled “free-range” livestock. Human beings are similarly at risk, as animal product industries take advantage of vulnerable migrant and seasonal farmworkers and perpetrate egregious working conditions.

Recent reports in the New York Times and NBC shed light on the human cost of animal agriculture and food packing in Michigan. The arising concerns of these reports noted that many of the eggs served around Ann Arbor every day may well be processed by 12-year-old children working 70 hours a week. Of course, consumers should not be held responsible for the slimy dealings of massive corporations. Nonetheless, the evidence only builds in the case against animal products, and more people are grappling with the ethical implications of what they put on their plate, whether vegetarian or omnivore.

Vegetarianism posits that limiting the consumption of meat tangibly reduces cruelty and climate change. This reasoning is mutual in the more “extreme” vegan diet. The diets have a lot in common, but they differ in terms of scope. To me, veganism is to vegetarianism as a square is to a rectangle. One would not be wrong in calling a shape with four perpendicular sides of equal length a rectangle, but they would be missing a more precise definition. Vegans, just as squares, strive for stricter criteria. That is, the vegan diet seeks to be congruent with an anti-suffering philosophy.

To be clear, any reduction in demand for animal products is a win in my book, and I don’t judge anyone who has not yet or cannot make the leap to veganism. People who follow majority plant-based diets but forgive some level of meat consumption describe their lifestyles with portmanteaus like flexitarian and freegan — while still attempting to lead a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, they still partake in some non-vegan habits.

I also don’t think perfect consistency is truly attainable; I certainly have my own hypocritical tendencies. While I’m not “freegan” for food, I still wear a pair of leather Birkenstocks that were given to me for free. If I forget to check a product’s ingredients before buying and it turns out to contain milk or honey, I’ll feel bad, give it to someone else and remind myself to look more closely next time. 

Nevertheless, if vegetarians accept the premise that reduced personal consumption makes a difference, the choice to eat animal products displays a level of cognitive dissonance: the psychological discomfort from or avoidance of simultaneous contradictory thoughts or behaviors. Many vegetarians agree that meat eaters who claim to be animal lovers are hypocritical, and yet they do not completely cut animal suffering from their diets.

One of the most challenging aspects of veganism is sacrificing personal taste, especially when the direct impacts of that decision are not immediately apparent. No one really enjoys thinking through the structural problems of the world, nor their place in those structures, but everyone can benefit from trying new ways of interacting with the world and the market for food.

With the ease of finding a restaurant or dining hall with vegan options in Ann Arbor — Jerusalem Garden, Detroit Street Filling Station and Totoro (among other local sushi spots), for example — it’s more accessible than ever to integrate plant-based foods into any lifestyle. The cost of eating out can be prohibitive in any diet, especially a restrictive one like veganism and during a period of high inflation. However, with more options in grocery stores and with reliable classics like dried legumes and tofu, eating plant-based can actually be cheaper than spending on meat.

Omnivores and vegetarians alike should challenge themselves and try something new, and they just might be surprised by how cheap, satisfying and harmless it tastes.

Nick Rubeck is an Opinion Columnist from Williamston, Mich. He writes about what our food, media and physical spaces can tell us about ourselves. He can be reached at nmrubeck@umich.edu.

The post Vegans aren’t vegetarians appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Growing up in Seoul, all of the information that I was fed about North Korea compelled me to fear the country. As an 8 year old in 2010, I remember coming home from school wide-eyed with fear after hearing the news that North Korea initiated an attack on Yeonpyeong Island, the northwestern border island situated between North and South Korea. The blank expression on my mother’s face as I got off of the school bus, the strongly-worded news clips rattling the nation and my trouble falling asleep at night all remain vivid memories inside of my head. Even at such a young age, just the thought of another bloody conflict frightened me. To this day, I pay careful attention to any story related to North Korean affairs.  

My country is one that has clawed itself out of poverty. South Korea is a country characterized by resilience, resourcefulness and han (한), or the feeling of collective grief and sorrow that the people of Korea share. While more and more of America and its culture is influencing me as I study here, I am always proud of being a Korean citizen. The more I attempt to trace my roots, the more I have to remind myself that while there are currently two Koreas, they started off as one. 

As I developed an interest in journalism and North Korean affairs, I could not shake the impression that Western media covers North Korea in an incredibly biased, hyperbolic manner. While it is no longer surprising to hear the typical “little rocket man” comment, I am always met with a pang of concern when I realize how most of the world associates North Korea with nothing more than nuclear weapons, poverty and a third-generational dictatorship.

Western media has been criticized for its imperfect coverage of North Korea for years. Stories about North Korea are often popular, as the public views the isolated, frozen-in-time country as a form of entertainment. And indeed, provocative stories speculating that Kim Jong-un banned leather coats, lost a lot of weight or entered a coma can truly spice up a boring day at work. As a result, journalists are strongly tempted to derive quick, provocative conclusions that lack credible sources or fact-checking to rack up hefty views and subscriptions.

This profit-driven mentality is not a new problem, nor one exclusive to the coverage of North Korean affairs. The problem is that Western media applies too much of its own interpretation when approaching the country of North Korea as compared to its coverage of other nations. As a result, in the process of producing content tailored toward maximizing the number of clicks and gasps, accuracy no longer takes priority and false or unfounded information is published. As a result, there is an overemphasis on negative news when it comes to stories related to North Korea. 

Western media often focuses on negative news and events in North Korea, including human rights abuses, nuclear threats and missile tests, while ignoring positive developments or avoiding the coverage of other topics altogether. When topics such as the culture of the country or the plight of North Korean defectors are overlooked and unaddressed, North Korea will not be understood in a comprehensive, rational manner. A lack of sufficient context and historical background of a nation-state can be extremely harmful, as it can lead to a distorted understanding of the country and its political situation.

While informing the readership of salient national security issues is necessary, it is concerning when such information becomes muddled with sensationalist, inflammatory language. Reporting accurate, fact-based information is the most viable way of preventing the masses from perceiving and replicating a skewed picture of the already-misunderstood country. When such principles are agreed upon and met in news covering domestic and other international affairs, it is difficult to grasp why the same understanding cannot be extended to North Korea. The harms of continuing such practices are as clear as day, and threaten the foundations of journalistic integrity and ethics. 

Of course, one could form the argument that there is not enough reliable information carrying news from official North Korean sources. After all, North Korea does have extremely high levels of censorship and security, and the Kim regime can be highly selective with the information that they share. However, shifting the blame on North Korea is nothing short of justifying pure ignorance; North Korea cannot be blamed for outright bad reporting, and it is the responsibility of all journalists to conduct proper research before publishing stories that will be read by a frighteningly large, diverse readership. Good research starts with talking to qualified experts, rather than picking up stories from other outlets or heavily relying on biased sources.

Instead of resorting to sensationalism and exaggeration that distorts the readership’s understanding of the country, Western journalists should make more active, genuine attempts to converse with reputable North Korea experts that may not necessarily speak their language. The Sejong Institute, The Asan Institute for Policy Studies and the Korea Institute for National Unification are just a few of the major South Korean research institutes conducting research on the Korean Peninsula. In addition to consulting more credible sources, media outlets ought to hire reporters with an eye for journalistic integrity and ethics, topics briefly mentioned during the first few onboarding meetings early in one’s career then often forgotten altogether.

The media’s flawed coverage of a country impacts real people and bears horrible consequences. During my time serving as president of my home university’s only central club dedicated to North Korean matters, it pained me to learn firsthand that thousands of North Koreans who have relocated to the South struggle with discrimination and prejudice from South Korean society. Unsurprisingly, such comments were almost always paired with the observation that media outlets paint the North Korean state and defector community in a negative manner. It’s about time journalists distance themselves from poor research and start putting in the hard work that goes into a good, truthful article about real people. 

Every day, I try to sweep aside what I write on my resume, what I tell my parents and what I say when asked about my goals. When I’m not an “undergrad interested in pursuing opportunities in politics, law and international affairs,” I am a college junior born and raised in Seoul, South Korea. I want people to better understand my country, and to understand the stuff outside of kimchi, K-Pop and speculations of a nuclear war. Surely, there is a consensus that media outlets should strive for accuracy, objectivity and fairness in their coverage of information, including content about history and North Korea. This consensus should include providing context, seeking out diverse perspectives and sources, and avoiding inflammatory language or bias. 

From Seoul, South Korea, So Jin Jung is an Opinion Columnist with a passion for politics and journalism. She can be reached at sojinj@umich.edu.

The post On western media’s coverage of North Korea appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

At the 11th hour, a $787 million settlement between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems averted a landmark trial alleging defamation at the hands of Fox News against Dominion. Regardless, the damage to Fox had already been done. Redacted documents widely shared to the American public demonstrated that while perpetuating claims of election fraud in the 2020 election to millions of viewers, behind the scenes, Fox widely ridiculed and denounced these claims. Shortly following — and possible related to — this dilemma was the firing of Fox News figurehead Tucker Carlson, whose controversial primetime show was consistently one of the highest rated shows on television.

For seven years, Carlson was the face of Fox News, even amid repeated allegations of racism and his perpetuation of a hostile work environment. This case and Carlson’s subsequent firing reveal what has become the driving force of legacy media: audience validation. This propels news outlets to tell the audience what they want to hear, at any cost. Fox, a corporation which states it is committed to “building a culture of trust, integrity, and ethical behavior” has been caught red-handed engaging in exactly this type of unethical behavior. While on the surface, this lawsuit has hurt Fox financially and led to Carlson’s exit, it also represents a crucial turn of events for the future of news media.

In the era of “fake news,” false, defamatory, misleading and hyperbolic statements travel faster and farther than real news. As an ever-expanding web of media sources compete for our undivided attention, televised news sources are under increasing pressure to retain their audience through increasingly desperate means. The Dominion case divulged a pivotal effect of this sort of competitive environment. While Carlson vehemently opposed Trump in private, his obligations to his conservative viewership meant that to escape irrelevancy, his stances had to shift along with the stances of his viewers. This two-faced approach seems to have become a staple across the organization, with multiple producers, anchors and executives making similarly incriminating remarks surrounding the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Throughout his seven-year campaign, Carlson’s primetime proclamations were often directly geared towards making inflammatory statements with the express purpose of stirring up controversy, which led to soaring viewership. Over time, his dominance over cable news meant that Fox increasingly relied on such assertions to generate revenue. In the years of Trump’s presidency, this meant harnessing otherwise taboo white nationalism by attacking minority groups and citing alt-right conspiracy theories. Long before the claims of election fraud, a high-level dispute arose when Brian Jones, then Fox’s highest-ranked Black executive, disputed Carlson’s coverage of Black people killing white landowners in South Africa, insisting that almost everything he said was untrue. Fox did nothing to stop Carlson, and later that evening President Trump tweeted that he enlisted Mike Pompeo, former U.S. Secretary of State, to investigate this mostly fraudulent story. This communication sparked outrage and resulted in a statement from the foreign minister of South Africa condemning the reports.

Nevertheless, Fox executives continued to stand behind Carlson, even amid dissenting voices resigning from Fox. By June 2020, Carlson had lost multiple advertisers from 2018, yet still brought in an immense amount of revenue. The remarks by Carlson, which sparked the defamation lawsuit against Fox, were not a novel event, but rather the final link in a long chain of his misinformation and outright lies. In spite of this, his sheer popularity and the revenue he granted Fox gave executives no incentive to end his dangerous streak across the primetime airwaves. 

Ironically, it was a string of highly offensive private text messages directed at these same Fox executives that allegedly was the final straw. Even with Carlson’s departure and a hopeful return to more fact-based programming, the culture at Fox News, headed by Rupert Murdoch and son Lachlan, remains mostly unchanged. While significant airtime was devoted to Carlson’s firing on other networks, it has remained business as usual at Fox, who have since replaced him with a rotating roster of anchors until a lasting replacement is found. This represents a pattern at Fox: Past anchors such as Bill O’Reilly were abruptly discarded once their presence became too inconvenient. 

Quintessentially, the for-profit news media system in the United States drives networks to appeal to the established beliefs of their audience to maximize viewership and retention, especially as many media sources diverge to a digital audience and growing subscription services. This constant pursuit of retention and engagement is guided by analytics on which stories are most popular with readers. In turn, this pushes networks to publish more stories on similar issues, driving exacerbation of media bias and partisanship. While other mainstream, left-leaning media networks such as CNN or MSNBC have escaped the legal scrutiny Fox News was subjected to in the Dominion case, political polarization among cable news has only increased over the last decade. Considering this trend, it’s possible that CNN, MSNBC and related networks also engage in similar practices to stay relevant. 

This cycle of bias is a double-edged sword. Not only does it affect media sources, but it also disproportionately affects viewers who become less receptive to ideas that challenge their established views. This phenomenon culminates in a population of people who are not only less media literate but also increasingly unaware of their own predispositions, as everything that aligns with their beliefs becomes an unequivocal fact. Viewers didn’t watch Fox News for Tucker Carlson or any other personality — millions tuned in because they knew he’d validate their own misaligned inclinations. This reality can be easily recognized within the recent rise of Newsmax, Fox News’ rival for the conservative media throne, which enjoyed substantial increases in ratings following Carlson’s departure.

Simultaneously, trust in the media has reached historic lows, especially among young people. Information they see on social media is almost equally trusted as information received from national news sources. Regardless of age group, levels of trust across the political divide have also decreased substantially, driven by a sharp decline among Republicans. Increased distrust in mainstream media has led to increasing numbers of people getting their news from alternative sources such as Breitbart or Infowars, which have carved out significant sectors of the right-wing ecosystem. These factors have led to a population which is increasingly vulnerable to misinformation and “fake news.” This is especially harrowing when swaths of people become increasingly attached to the ideas of ideological demagogues such as Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. 

This rapid spread of “fake news” as a result of distrust in reputable sources cannot be solely attributed to Republicans or Democrats. On both sides of the political aisle, individuals with high conscientiousness were least likely to spread misinformation. But, Republicans with low conscientiousness were two and a half times more likely to share misinformation, higher than all other groups combined. In another study, the spread of conspiracy theories was equally likely between conservatives and liberals. This refutes the common misconception that the fault lies exclusively with radical conservatives — in reality it lies with those who are poor critical thinkers, regardless of political affiliation. 

The Dominion lawsuit and Carlson’s firing represent an extreme case in this cycle, yet must serve as a reminder that above all else, the truth must be one step above pursuing profits. “Tucker Carlson Tonight” is a cautionary tale of what happens when this business model is driven to the extreme, and other mainstream media outlets must respond by assessing the biases present in their own coverage. We have already seen the results of overly-partisan reporting over the last decade. In its wake, media outlets have an opportunity to deliver just the facts, not their facts. Alternatively, outlets will continue to perpetuate the proclivities of their audience, and we will face an even more polarized and divided nation.

Maximilian Schenke is an Opinion Columnist who is passionate about international politics and how they affect us locally, but often writes about national politics as well. He loves receiving criticism or otherwise at maxsch@umich.edu.

The post Fox’s lawsuit and Tucker Carlson’s departure mark a turning point for mainstream news media appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Most Americans have an outdated view of individual freedom prompted by the illusion that, in the absence of governmental tyranny, we can live a fruitful lifestyle which simply consists of consumption. It’s a Lockean view that’s dragging modernist 18th century ideals into the 21st century. However, tyranny can be exhibited by different powers, disjoint from the government. The fear of some Orwellian, power-hungry agency fails to account for the new-age corporate authoritarianism. These new entities exert tyranny in ways that require new terms in and of themselves. 

For Americans, “freedom” has been packaged with an illusion of democracy, a not-so-free free market and facetious individual liberty. While these ideals served as a monumental shift in values at a certain period, new entities, such as corporations, make it imperative that we update our political schemas. The semantic fixation on freedom to mean “whatever I want to buy and whatever I want to sell” is shortsighted. There is a darker reality enchaining the disregarded worker. What I find particularly interesting is the American obsession with “democracy” in terms of government, but not companies. If democratization is the goal, why are corporations not forced to adhere to it?

So, where is the working class in society’s corporate hierarchy? 

Well, right-wing media has grasped the working class in an effective and sensational way. It’s not the leftist thinkers like Nathan Robinson or Noam Chomsky that gain any serious spotlight in the general American media. In fact, a worrying phenomenon of hypercapitalism is the rise of reactionary literature: It reaffirms, in an articulate and seemingly profound manner, the bases of capitalism without ever seriously surveying larger leftist or progressive literature. This, in turn, commodifies intellectualism.

To really peer into the modern-day conservative American psyche, we can observe the events of January 6. There was an American frustration with politics and its associated bureaucracy, but it manifested in a misguided, racist and violent way. Former President Donald Trump was the working-class savior in a lot of the same ways that any energetic fascist leader is a savior: He blamed external illusions but never the system that was harming its people. From sabotaging the Affordable Care Act to giving the rich unprecedented tax breaks, the Trump administration failed to challenge the structural problems that the nation faces and instead turned to outside false threats to fire up the people. Yet reality was so obscured for some people that they weren’t able to define their ills, leading to an ideological suicide (which entails people leaping from their reality to landing on some falsehood that they deem is the source of their anguish). 

In a country where everyone is either too exhausted or too distracted to critically think and change the conditions of their lives, it’s easy to see why conservatives and libertarians — which are merely conservatives disguised in a supposed fight for freedom — can gain such potent control of a population that can be satisfied with trivial things. Leftists, and especially academics, have failed to offer accessible and sensational material to be digested by the masses. But is this due to the incompatibility of leftist social change to be communicated in a commercial and sensational way? 

What I mean is this: What’s more fun, watching some dumb liberal get destroyed by basic facts and logic, or an economic breakdown of labor theory? Sure, there were some trendy shows, like the “The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah, but they only worked to villainize the conservatives instead of uniting the working class. They did not communicate leftist ideas effectively to those that need to hear them most. 

As the political fabric stretches more and more and economic disparities continue to eat away at the working class, leftist figures have a chance to take hold of this cultural tear and convince the masses that we are united under similar struggles. And, outside of ideological disagreements, there are truths that do not require a lot of empirical investigation, such as the absurd cost of insulin compared to every other Western country. Therefore, one can only hope that the working class will stop gravedigging and find unity against the oppressive realities of capitalism. 

On an even more cynical note, even revolutionary thought is often ignited in a capitalist society, which promotes anti-capitalist art, movies (which date back to the Charlie Chaplin era) and culture in a consumptive manner, none of which actually threaten any capitalist fundamentals. Thus, the onus is on leftist thinkers to cater to their audience in an authentic way that’s realistic about this new-age of corporate totalitarianism, all without sacrificing the left’s ideology.

How can this be done? I’m not really too sure given that when you look around your room, for instance, the assembly of all the items in it required elaborately orchestrated and organized mass-production and outsourcing processes that would overwhelm the consumer. In other words, our entire material reality is constructed upon the very premises of convoluted capitalism. And so, in the words of Frederic Jameson, “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” That’s why we need post-ideological leftists to offer alternatives to the working class that’s engrossed in consistent exploitation and media manipulation.

Consider the railroad strike that took place last December. Instead of supporting their fellow workers, Americans resented the strike and mass media blamed the workers for putting the American economy on hold. Neoliberal capitalism is an unconscious presupposition for American society that understands the class struggle and constructs powerful narratives to maintain itself. So President Joe Biden signed a bill to block the strike. The working class learns to demonize protesters (who are also a part of the working class) instead of the ruling class that has created the intolerable conditions to which protests are a response. When the working class adopts self-deprecation, progress is impossible. 

The conservative base has an ideological inertia that’s difficult to deconstruct because the indoctrination is embedded in the American fiber and then sublimated into American culture. The right has successfully delivered its agenda in a commercial and entertaining way. It’s a reaction that sacrifices critical thought for underdeveloped arguments, bigotry and traditionalism. It appeals to a common denominator of people that have a lazy (and suppressed) obsession with reaffirming their ideology that’s supposed to be meritocratic and individual-focused (don’t strike, work).

The reality, however, consists of a Darwinist dogma that only perpetuates meaningless competition that’s spectated over, and profited from, by a small fraction of the population. But this “common denominator” is the fabric of the “American spirit.” The grand mediator of Christian values that have been perverted by consumerism and, by virtue of some socio-economic mess, turned into a kind of Trumpism is the byproduct of rural poverty, systemic racism and a culture that lacks (and sometimes despises) critical thought.

Ammar Ahmad is an Opinion Columnist from Damascus, Syria, and he writes about international politics and American culture. You can reach him at ammarz@umich.edu.

The post Reimagining freedom in modern corporate America appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

There are two times that I tend to see my local gym fill up the most. The first time is in January when about one-third of New Year’s resolutions are fitness-oriented, and the second is in the summer when high schoolers and college students have too much time on their hands. In all honesty, there’s always a part of me that gets a bit annoyed when one of the two squat racks on the floor is taken by someone doing deadlifts with questionable form, but a part of me has come to appreciate people for at least trying to take their health a little bit more seriously.

In a nation where more than two-thirds of the population is either overweight or obese and only 28% of people are meeting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s physical activity guidelines, it’s no secret that we as a nation need to be more proactive in our health. I truly believe that a trip to the gym once in a while would be greatly beneficial for all people, no matter their weight or experience with fitness.

I’ve spoken to many people who think the gym is a place for no one but the most extreme of bodybuilders. I really can believe this assertion; anecdotally, all of my friends who lift do it for aesthetic reasons. In numeric terms, a 2016 survey indicates that 43% of people cite body improvements as their reasoning behind lifting. With that established, I make my point: No matter how much it seems like it, there is no need to be physique-oriented to have a reason to come to the gym.

So, what exactly can one do in the gym? Well, there’s bodybuilding, powerlifting, CrossFit, running, aerobic classes …  you get the idea. There’s plenty to do! I came into the gym wanting to be the embodiment of a bodybuilder, both large and lean. It’s a combination that takes both time and effort to achieve. For some time, I kept at it, but I eventually realized that I wasn’t enjoying the dedicated work for isolated muscles. As a result, I switched over to powerlifting, where I spent my time in the gym focusing on the “big three” of strength training: bench pressing, squatting and deadlifting.

All of this to say that there is absolutely nothing restricting a person to a singular discipline. You have the freedom to do what you want in the gym. Maybe you’re strictly dedicated to a routine and like to see consistent progress, and that’s great. Maybe you just want to get your blood flowing, and that’s fine, too. There is nothing physically stopping you from doing what you want within the gym’s walls, and even if you’re not coming too frequently, a person would rather say “It’s been four days since I’ve exercised” than “It’s been four months since I’ve exercised.”

Even then, there remains an arguably more prominent mental barrier for many to come to the gym, a feeling commonly referred to as “gymtimidation.” If the act of working out were as easy as deciding on what to do in the gym, gyms would undoubtedly be more crowded than they usually are — showing up in the first place is much harder.

“Gymtimidation” is another term for gym anxiety, referring specifically to feelings of discomfort and uneasiness provoked by the gym. Studies show that it is fairly common, with The International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association finding that 50% of Americans report having experienced the phenomenon at a certain point. This becomes a problem for the average college student. Most students have some form of social media, and we have all seen the incredibly lean fitness models that are extremely popular on these platforms. Though they may not look like it day to day, these models are showing themselves at their “best” with enlarged muscles and excellent lighting. This, in turn, becomes a viewer’s impression of what a “gym-goer” is while they compete with their usual, untrained physique in the bathroom mirror. 

This feeling is paired with preexisting negative perceptions of body image that some people use as motivation, the abundance of fitness misinformation and the general difficulty of forming lifestyle-changing habits. This amalgamation of external and internal conflicts reveals why fitness can be daunting for so many individuals. It is truly difficult to find some way to start, often prompting questions such as “Am I doing enough?” or “Am I doing the right routine?” which embody some variety of self doubt.

I would not say that overcoming this mental barrier is easy by any means. What I do argue for is finding some way to overcome it as the benefits of exercise are plentiful. Some of the most common types of gym anxiety include being unsure about what routine to do, how to do the exercises in it or a general belief that you don’t “fit in” with the social environment of the gym. Though nothing can alleviate gym anxiety with absolute certainty, there are certainly steps one can take to help. Uncertainty in a routine can be combated by establishing a regular cycle of gym activities or learning a movement before you step foot in the building. If concerns are related to feeling isolated in a new environment, bring a friend that is willing to navigate the gym with you.

Beyond the basic mental and physiological effects of exercise, there’s always more to be found where you want it. The gym can provide a change of scenery, a motivational environment or just something to do in general — there’s plenty to be had from the experience. The bottom line is that your goals do not have to be the same as someone else’s. Even if you’re content with your physical appearance, maybe your stamina could use some work. Maybe you just like lifting heavy weights or you really do want to look like a model. Maybe you just want to be more flexible or just want to get out of the house for an hour or two. In the environment of the gym, anything goes. In the long term, do something sustainable and enjoyable, because even the smallest increment of self-improvement is an improvement.

So, consider coming to the gym. No matter what goals you may have, as long as there is a will to improve, there’s a place for you here — and there should be no reason to believe otherwise.

Mohammed Hasan is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at momerh@umich.edu.

The post Go to the gym — you won’t regret it appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Grocery stores nowadays are inundated with products touting profound health benefits. The shelves are increasingly lined with the latest “superfood,” sugar-free, organic breads and berries of a health nut’s dreams. When you leave the supermarket and jump onto social media, it just gets worse. Influencer after influencer promoting raw diets, juice cleanses and every other dietary fad is flooding feeds, with popular slogans like “#cleaneating” yielding more than 47 million posts on Instagram and 900 million views on TikTok.

The alluring advertising of these products sold in colorful and trendy packaging coupled with the perfectly built individuals promoting them online makes it hard to not fall into line with this “clean” food trend. After all, why wouldn’t you want to look like a model all while “healing your gut”? Suddenly, you’re heading back to the supermarket and stacking your cart with zero-carb bread and that green powder that will hopefully give you rock-hard abs because the model and personal trainer from Los Angeles that showed up on your feed told you so.  

Beyond the fact that social media has lied to you — and those influencers have abs because working out is their job — you run into another problem: “Health” foods are expensive. Like, really expensive. What used to be a $1.32 loaf of Great Value white bread in your cart is now a $6.18 loaf of Ezekiel sprouted, whole grain bread. Add in the $29.98 bottle of Bloom Nutrition Powder and you’re done for.

This issue cuts deeper than swapping out your breads, though. The idolization of these trendy health foods comes with a consequential and often unspoken demonization of “unclean” foods. Processed, ready-made and calorie-dense foods are often viewed unfavorably as society strives to solely eat the “fresh” and “lean” foods associated with “clean” diets. Another critically important quality of these frowned-upon foods is their status as staples in low-income diets. 

In looking at this relationship between income and diet, the Harvard School of Public Health found that, on average, eating a “healthy” diet costs $1.50 more per day, totaling $550 extra per year. This is no minor burden on many low-income households. Households with low socioeconomic status tend to spend less money on food. Due to the higher cost of “healthy foods,” these families buy more unhealthy foods and beverages than fruits and vegetables. A closer look at which foods different low-income groups consume reveals that the foods stereotypically deemed “unclean” — including fatty meats, canned foods, cereals and white bread — are more often purchased by low-income households.

The convenience, lower price and availability of “unclean” foods all drive low-income households to base much of their diet around “unhealthy” foods. Though many trendy foods may very well be more nutrient-dense or have fresher ingredients than processed foods, purchasing these foods is simply not feasible for many. Meeting caloric needs generally takes precedence over nutritional value for a majority of low-income households. As if making this sacrifice to prioritize caloric intake is not burdensome enough, the impacts of a high-calorie, low-nutrient-dense diet on health are yet another strain on low-income households, a strain that comes with stigma. 

Low-income individuals are often shamed for the health effects that processed diets may have. Obesity — despite being an issue that grips roughly 40% of American adults — is a commonly misconstrued health condition, with blame often being put on those struggling with it. In analyzing geographic area poverty, the CDC found that a higher percentage of poverty was associated with a higher rate of obesity. According to research published by the American Diabetes Association, American counties with poverty rates higher than 35% may even have obesity rates 145% higher than higher-income counties. While some claim that this is a wholly reverse causal relationship in that obesity creates a lower income rather than a lower income causing obesity, it is likely that in highly developed countries like the United States, the relationship goes both ways. An aspect of reverse causation in the relationship between income and obesity would actually only make this a more vicious cycle, as nutritious foods are unattainable for those struggling with their health because of initial lack of access to nutritious foods. 

Some may argue that the price disparities between “clean” and “unclean” foods are due to their varying ingredients. It is true that “unhealthy” foods are often cheaper than “healthy” foods; meat and dairy subsidies combined with the seasonal nature of fresh produce form this disparity in cost between food types. When compared calorie for calorie, however, it is clear that “healthy” foods are often subject to greater fluxes of inflation and likely arbitrary mark-ups amid rising health food trends. Research from the University of Washington found that low-calorie (“healthy”) foods were more likely to experience inflated prices, with costs of these foods increasing 19.5% during the two-year study. High-calorie (“unhealthy”) food prices remained predictable, actually decreasing in cost by 1.8%.

So is the fact that “trendy,” clean foods are much pricier simply an accident? I don’t think so. This convenient trend of shaming the inflexible dietary choices of lower-income households is just a new way of creating separation between classes. Propagating a trend that centers around a seemingly purely positive way of living and then making it only available to those with a high income is simply a colorful revamp of the same tired classism that is seen time and time again in social trends. The influencers promoting their latest “superfood” sponsorship may not realize the enduring scheme of class division that they are contributing to (and the consumers buying in are probably even more clueless), but the harm in this kind of social precedent is no less impactful. 

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t buy a protein bar or sprouted bread next time you’re at the store — being mindful of what you’re consuming is a positive thing. But if you choose white bread out of sheer preference or can’t afford otherwise, then you shouldn’t have to feel ashamed. Food is food, regardless of what that model on TikTok tells you. It’s time we stop using food as another vehicle to justify high socioeconomic status superiority and start eating what we want.

Molly Amrine is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at mamrine@umich.edu.

The post “Clean” eating is classist at its core appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

“I never should have dropped. I can’t believe you let me do that,” I said. This was minute 10 of me walking around the patio in distress, whisper-yelling to my parents on the phone. In hindsight, me dropping out of my computer science class was not their doing. But it always feels a little easier to blame someone else for my “mistakes.”

My mom reassured me that it was a good decision and that if I was no longer pursuing a degree in cognitive science on the computer science track, I was essentially putting myself through EECS hell for elective credit. There was no logical response on my end of the phone call, merely a blabbering of reasons why my parents shouldn’t encourage me to quit hard things. But, all faux-blame aside, I was the one who pressed the withdraw button after seven weeks, countless failed tutoring sessions and a handful of code-induced meltdowns.

Quitting is taboo in today’s world, especially in the setting of high academia. I proudly transferred to the University of Michigan, and I still recall my friend assuring me that leaving my old university doesn’t make me a failure. For me, that was never even a consideration. If anything, transferring to a highly-regarded institution made me a successful student. 

There are, however, a sizable smattering of things that I have felt shameful about quitting, EECS included. In my experience, quitting has generally been frowned upon. For instance, my sister quitting everything she tried throughout middle school always used to be the butt of the joke at family gatherings, and understandably so. When she quit something, it was after minimal effort, and her alternative was doing nothing in her room. If it wasn’t dance, it was piano, and if it wasn’t piano, it was all of the sports and activities to ever exist. I’m telling you, this girl liked nothing. This rare scenario is when I view quitting as something that indicates a deeper, underlying issue. 

However, for most people (including the adult version of my sister), the alternative to doing something isn’t doing nothing. So then why is there still shame around quitting? I quit EECS to do something more desired and useful with my time. Now, my biopsychology, cognition and neuroscience major leaves my days EECS-free with the same job prospects as cognitive science. But there is still something embarrassing about saying that I dropped a class seven weeks in after giving it my all. Could that “something embarrassing” be the admission of failure? 

There are a few reasons why quitting is taboo, one of them being mere connotation. The denotation of the word “quit” is to give up and implies a lack of effort. In a productivity-centered society, a lack of effort, especially in a work-setting, is wildly frowned upon. This is potentially due to the idea of capitalistic productivity, which suggests that in order to professionally advance and earn money, we must act as work machines who prioritize our jobs over everything. In this sense, as college students we all have an internalized pressure to work and be productive, perhaps subconsciously. Quitting or giving up does not seem to go hand-in-hand with productivity. 

However, quitting is sometimes the most productive thing you can do. The sunk cost fallacy is the idea that you can’t stop now because of all the time and resources you have already invested into the commitment. This fallacy rests on four factors, all of which can also explain my hesitancy to quit EECS (and your hesitancy to drop the club you attend once a week but can’t stand). 

The first factor of the sunk cost fallacy is loss aversion: the desire to avoid loss over all else, even over gaining something equally valuable. The most extreme example of this is hoarding — the loss would be throwing away all of the junk, while the gain would be a clean, organized space. 

The second factor is commitment bias, which argues that people tend to remain loyal to past behaviors or decisions, particularly to those that were publicly stated. If someone publicly commits to The Ohio State University, for example, and then gets off the waitlist at the University of Michigan, it might be the more logical decision to come to the University of Michigan. But, according to commitment bias, this student may feel pressured to stick to their original plan and thus will make the wrong decision. 

The third factor is waste avoidance. People don’t want to quit because they don’t want to waste the resources — money, time, energy — they have already invested. This factor was certainly my largest consideration when I dropped my class and is likely the concern of many college students. Thinking about all of the countless nights I spent coding when I could have been doing work I enjoyed almost made me suffer through the second seven weeks of the class. 

Last but not least, factor four is emotional bias. This factor argues that emotional attachment makes us want to stay committed, even if we don’t enjoy the commitment. This one is most prevalent in relationships and even life-long sports.

It’s dangerously easy to get sucked into the sunk cost fallacy, hence the name. Psychological phenomena like this are highly influential, but there are ways to eliminate unwanted influences, even the ones that come from your own brain. Being aware of the sunk cost fallacy is the most effective way to outsmart your mind in these scenarios wherein you are desperate to end a commitment. If you know what it means and what it can do to you, you have the power to avoid the fallacy’s spell and reframe your thought process surrounding quitting your various commitments. 

Quit, even if it’s to do nothing instead. I quit countless things throughout my high school and college career, and I couldn’t be happier with the path I’m currently on. I quit my first university to attend the University of Michigan. I quit my sorority because I didn’t like the social scene and wanted to spend my time in other ways. I mentally quit my intended economics major, political science major and creative writing major. I love what I do now and how I spend my time — clubs, classes, friends and all. And I wouldn’t have found these passions and people had I not quit what was wrong for me.

Of course, all of my advice depends on having a fairly strong sense of self. Quitting may bode poorly for someone who is wishy-washy about everything they do. But I’ve always been someone whose interests often turn into passions. So, although sometimes it’s exceptionally difficult, I try to remind myself of the benefits of quitting, and not let the sunk cost fallacy stand in my way.

Talia Belowich is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at taliabel@umich.edu.

The post A message to the aspiring quitter appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

I first discovered Keith LaMar’s story on a visit to the Michigan State University Broad Art Museum, where a large sculpture of his is displayed. He dealt drugs as a teenager and was sent to prison after killing a man in 1989. Four years into his sentence, a violent riot broke out in the prison and left 10 people dead. Keith was charged with killing five of them. His punishment? Death.

Keith LaMar, the murderer-turned-artist, is set to be executed by the state of Ohio on Nov. 16, 2023 — 34 years after his initial incarceration.

Ohio has been near-certain of Keith’s guilt for a long time, yet he has remained on death row for nearly three decades. This is not abnormal. The appeals process, which Keith made great use of, is designed to eliminate any possible doubt before the state proceeds with a killing. This results in the average condemned inmate waiting 18 years before being either exonerated or executed. 

This waiting time is absurdly long — not to mention emotionally devastating and expensive for everyone involved — but it does reveal something deeply compassionate about America. We value life and refuse to dispose of it thoughtlessly. We’re terrified of getting a case wrong and sending an innocent person to their demise. Studies show that about 4.1% of current death row inmates are wrongfully convicted, and even this relatively small group of individuals shakes us to our core. America is a just country made up of just people. We’re better than the death penalty. 

It is clear that society is safer when murderers are kept off the streets. But giving them life without parole accomplishes this just as well as an execution, all without any of the evidential risk or moral burden. Assuming Keith is actually guilty, an assumption he contests but multiple appeals have confirmed, his actions during the Lucasville Prison Uprising were abhorrent, and the people of Ohio can all sleep soundly knowing that he is locked away. But will they sleep any sounder knowing he’s dead?

If one of Keith’s victims had been my father, brother or son, I know I would be tempted by retribution. You would likely be, too. That’s the human response. An eye for an eye is simple — the most intuitive form of justice. Mercy is much harder for us to wrap our heads around, but we must try. Keith LaMar should never walk free. But he shouldn’t die, either.

I want to discuss what has led me to my current stance on capital punishment. The first is a shallow matter of regionalism. Michigan was the first English-speaking polity in the world to eliminate the death penalty, and for this I feel a great sense of pride. Secondly, as a kid, I read the closing arguments for another death penalty case spoken by legendary defense attorney Clarence Darrow.

Pleading for the lives of his clients, who slaughtered their younger cousin in cold blood, Darrow said, “If the state in which I live is not kinder, more human, more considerate, more intelligent than the mad act of these two mad boys, I am sorry I have lived so long.”

To apply his wisdom here: Keith LaMar has taken lives. We don’t have to.

If the courts are to be believed, Keith has extinguished six souls over the course of his life. They will never breathe, love or cry again because of him. But Keith has a soul, too. That’s what struck me most about his sculpture at the art museum. Here is a man I so desperately want to reduce to nothing more than his crime, but he won’t let me. Yes, he is a criminal. But he’s also an artist, poet and musician.

Keith’s story shows us something about everyone currently sitting on death row. They might not express themselves as eloquently or as positively as he does, but they are all complex human beings with the same right to life as their victims. There is no utility in killing them. It won’t bring their victims back. We can rationalize this state-sponsored murder with words like “justice” and “closure,” but the only motivation we can honestly claim is rage.

If we truly thought the death penalty would bring peace to the victims and their families, we wouldn’t be so ashamed of it. But we are. When Keith is injected with lethal chemicals in November, he and the executioner will be separated by a black curtain. The two will never see each other. This isn’t justice. Real justice is something you can be proud of, not something you must avert your eyes from.

The thought of some official state calendar containing the various execution dates of different inmates is sickening. Keith, a sad, albeit guilty man, is counting down the days until he’s killed. The state, in absolute control of his fate, is counting down the days until they get to kill him.

But when the autumn day comes that Keith takes his last breath, the responsibility belongs to all of us. Not just the jury and executioner. As citizens, we cannot willingly engage in taking a life and destroying a soul. We are Americans. We live in the land of second chances — redemption runs in our blood. Public safety demands Keith be incarcerated, but the American Dream calls on us to let him live. We choose how justice is done in our country, and we must choose better.

Jack Brady is an Opinion Columnist writing about American politics and culture. He can be reached at jackrbra@umich.edu.

The post America is better than the death penalty appeared first on The Michigan Daily.