Opinion
JENNIFER CALFAS
EDITOR IN CHIEF
AARICA MARSH
and DEREK WOLFE
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LEV FACHER
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, April 6, 2015
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica
Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Allison
Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman,
Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
K
urt Vonnegut wrote in his
last book, “A Man With-
out a Country” that most
great
literature
— “A Farewell to
Arms,”
“Ham-
let,” the Bible —
is about what a
bummer it is to
be a human being.
He wrote next:
“Isn’t it such a
relief for someone
to say that?”
If
this
reso-
nates at all with
you, it probably does for two big rea-
sons. The first is that you have prob-
ably lived enough and read enough
to know that life is a bummer. You
share in the collective discontent
with the way life is. The second rea-
son explains why you might not have
realized that you shared in any “col-
lective discontent”: you, too, have
long had your discontent suppressed.
Not only have the people around you
seldom spoken publicly about what a
bummer life is, you yourself have sel-
dom spoken about it. Every day when
you walk out the door and someone
asks, “How are you?” and you smile,
saying, “fine” or “good,” you have had
to deny the fact of your discontent to
others, and thus denied the fact of it
to yourself.
But the discontent and its various
emotional manifestations (sadness,
anxiety, anger, etc.) didn’t then go
away. With your help, society has
suppressed your sadness, anxiety
and anger deep into your psyche, pre-
venting them from entering the pub-
lic space and allowing them to fester
inside of you, becoming infected.
Consequently, you drink too much,
smoke too much, eat too much, fuck
too much, unwittingly trying to
soothe this now gnarly, deep-seated
discontent when the real solution
would be to talk about it, or at least
listen to others talk about it.
Honestly, how often are you fine or
good? I’m fine or good maybe a quar-
ter of the time, and I don’t consider
myself an especially unhappy person.
I’m one of the lucky ones. But I, too,
smile automatic, phony smiles when
greeting people on the street, and I
lie and tell them I’m fine or good.
I’m not necessarily not fine the
other three-quarters of the time —
I’ve got decent food to eat, a decent
place to sleep, etc. — but quite often
there’s something bothering me
that I feel uncomfortable talking
about and uncomfortable confront-
ing even privately. There exists for
me, and I think for others, too, this
social pressure not to “bother” peo-
ple with my problems. I think it fits
in with this ideal of rugged individ-
ualism that we Americans learned
to embrace from watching too many
Westerns. “John Wayne doesn’t cry,
so I don’t either! Chris Kyle doesn’t
cry, so I don’t either!” OK … so how’s
that noble self-reliance working out
for ya?
I, too, often feel unduly burdened
by other people’s problems when
they bravely break social custom and
tell me how they’re really doing. I’m
already struggling alone with the
problems that I feel pressured not
to share or talk about with others,
so I don’t have any mental energy
left over for other people’s problems,
and so, in turn, they don’t have any
mental energy left over for my prob-
lems; so goes the vicious cycle. But, if
I did the brave thing and shared my
burden with others, then I could, in
turn, share in their burdens. I would
not only alleviate myself of my dis-
content that has been compounded
by repeated social interactions as
well as self-denial, I would alleviate
the discontent of others as well.
And this is not to say that it’s not
OK to be miserable, because it is
OK. You need not always be either
“fine” or “good.” If you aren’t at least
occasionally bummed out by being
a human, you either aren’t a human
or you aren’t paying attention. Even
if you have heaps of money, food
and sex, there is stuff in life about
which you probably ought be mis-
erable. Don’t be afraid of it; the bad
stuff will probably enrich your life
experience and you as a person.
Often when I’m unhappy, I feel
like something’s wrong with me,
and that makes me even unhappier.
I read the opening of the Declara-
tion of Independence (always good
to have a copy handy) and I think
to myself, “I ought to pursue hap-
piness!” But you don’t always have
to be happy and you don’t always
have to pursue happiness. Isn’t it
such a relief for someone to say that?
When I’m miserable, let me be mis-
erable. The only thing worse than
being miserable is being miserable
and feeling as if you shouldn’t be.
That makes me frustrated, and then
I smoke, drink and/or eat too much
pizza right before bed in order to
“fix” my misery, and then wake up
the next morning feeling shitty, and
then I feel as if I should be happier
than I am, and I drink too much cof-
fee and the cycle continues. But if,
when I was unhappy, I was OK with
feeling unhappy, then I wouldn’t try
so hard to be happy. Paradoxically,
that’s the way to be happy: be OK
with being unhappy.
Thank god for literature, because
literature (good literature) helps
us not be so alone with these feel-
ings when the rest of society doesn’t
want to hear it. Thank god for mov-
ies, too (good movies). These medi-
ums of artistic expression penetrate
our fleshy masks and speak to our
lonely feelings of sadness, anxiety
and anger and show us that other
people feel like life is a bummer, too.
We don’t have to explicitly tell any-
one else we feel like the characters
in the movie or the book, but by the
fact of our watching the movie or
reading the book, others can infer
our secret, lonely dissatisfaction
with the way life is going.
I wouldn’t want to rob art of its
fantastic capacity to make us less
alone with our sadness, anxiety and
anger, but it needn’t be the exclusive
site of eradicating loneliness and
sharing discontent. Let each of us
reveal the various manifestations of
our discontent in order to expose the
collective discontent inside society.
By alleviating each of our individual
burdens, we shall alleviate the col-
lective burden. Surely the first step
to making ourselves happier is con-
fessing the ways we aren’t happy. Of
course, such a widespread confession
of unhappiness would be difficult for
established power and pretentious
authority whose reign depends on
everyone pretending that everything
is awesome. Surely, everything is
awesome for some people, and those
people most likely stand to benefit
from the system as it is: the status
quo. So for those of us who are dis-
content and dissatisfied, we ought to
take deliberate measures to change
the miserable conditions that exist
on this earth.
— Zak Witus can be reached
at zakwitus@umich.edu.
Greek life. Two words that have, by them-
selves, the same innocence afforded to them as
any other. However, when you put those two
words together, they automatically assume
an air of negativity. The first stereotypical
thoughts that people have when they hear the
words “Greek life” are unfortunately those of
incessant partying, rape, sexual harassment,
drinking, hazing, racism and entitlement. And
because of recent events, Greek life has never
before been attacked in the way it is now.
With everything going on lately, there have
been two sides, of sorts, that have sprouted
up surrounding the topic. The first is that of
the media and general population: Greek life
is a menace that fosters humiliating practices
which need to be ended immediately on every
level. The second is members of Greek life, who
feel victimized and generalized by everything
that has gone on recently, causing them to spout
off any and all facts about how helpful Greek
life is, with which I, as a proud member of Beta
Theta Pi, do not disagree.
However, neither of these sides is very help-
ful in moving forward. They both defend what
they believe in because they are passionate
about their beliefs, and there is nothing wrong
with that. Everyone should be afforded the
opportunity to defend his or her ideals. How-
ever, in this case, the worst thing that can hap-
pen is dividing us into two sides.
People aren’t really mad at Greek life. People
aren’t enraged about college students coming
together in brotherhood or sisterhood. They
are upset about the horrible acts that are broad-
casted nationwide — events like racist chants,
reports of sexual assault and rape and even peo-
ple committing suicide. These are the real rea-
sons why people are up in arms. The nation is
trying to find some sort of outlet for this anger,
and because the media can paint an easy target
on Greek life, fraternities and sororities nation-
wide are now under the scrutiny of the societal
magnifying glass, looking for any excuse to try
to burn the whole system to the ground. They
do this because it’s easy to confront something
physical, like Greek life, and because people
find it interesting to read about, which helps
ratings. However, the real problem lies in the
societal shortcomings and defects that allow
for these atrocities to happen.
The fact is this: these sorts of tragedies hap-
pen far too frequently at every college campus
across the nation. Issues like sexual assault and
mental illness are still considered taboo. The
problem with our society isn’t Greek life mem-
bers committing terrible acts. The problem
is that we, as a culture, haven’t worked hard
enough to get rid of the overarching problems
that allow people to do these terrible things.
We haven’t supported the survivors of sex-
ual assault as a nation. We have looked down
upon the events as something terrible with-
out fully realizing the emotional and physi-
cal toll that the survivor must go through, for
perhaps the rest of their lives, as a result. We
haven’t made it socially acceptable for some-
one with a mental or physical illness to reach
out to a friend or ask for help. Instead, they try
to struggle against it themselves. We haven’t
educated people enough about personal identi-
ties and how they can be complex and fragile
at times.
We haven’t done this because we are always
pointing fingers. The problem with this is that
the true evil doesn’t care about sides. The only
way to combat this injustice is through unity,
understanding and communication. And until
we learn that, we will never be able to rid these
evils from our world.
Paul Deford is an LSA junior.
Everything is awesome!!
ZAK
WITUS
PAUL DEFORD | VIEWPOINT
Divided we fail
Are feminists asking for too
much? Many men and even some
women answer this question with
a definitive “yes.” Critics of the
feminist movement say that women
in America have all their funda-
mental rights protected already.
Still, feminists continue to mobi-
lize, because their ultimate goal of
equality under the law for both men
and women has not been met.
Women cannot be equal under
the law until they are included in the
process that creates the law. Eleanor
Roosevelt, first lady and the first
chair of the United Nations’ Human
Rights Commission, believed that
women must be at the table negotiat-
ing policy themselves if their voices
are to be heard. For this to happen,
women must be included in all levels
of government.
At first glance, it seems as if
women have as much space as men
to govern and craft policy. Ameri-
can laws do not prohibit women
from running for office or holding
executive positions. International
law explicitly protects women’s
political rights in the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination
against
Women,
which gives women the right to
participate in the formulation of
government policy and to hold
public office.
Despite the apparent opportu-
nity, women are overwhelmingly
not included in governing bodies.
Although women make up 50.8
percent of the nation’s population,
their representation in public posi-
tions falls far below that.
Rutgers’ Center for American
Women and Politics portrays the
discouraging number of women
in American government. On a
national scale, women represent
just 19.4 percent of Congress, leav-
ing the remaining 80.6 percent to
men. Not to mention that no woman
has yet held the presidency.
It doesn’t improve dramatically
on a state level, either. Women hold
just 24.2 percent of state legislature
seats. Within the more “presti-
gious” state senates, the percentage
is even lower. These figures point
to the harsh reality that men are
the ones dictating policy-making.
Frighteningly, still, is that what
begins with unequal political rep-
resentation becomes unequal law.
Because women do not have as
great a voice in policy-making, it is
difficult for them to address laws
which disproportionately impact
women. This leads the laws them-
selves to become unequal, often
widening the gap between equality
for men and women.
In 2012, when the Michigan Leg-
islature was considering an anti-
abortion bill, there were just 31
women holding seats. Ultimately,
it was men who made the decision
about what would happen with
women’s bodies, and the few voices
of women that were available were
silenced. The New York Daily News
reported that two female represen-
tatives were barred from speak-
ing on the floor after they used the
words “vagina” and “vasectomy.”
This serves to demonstrate the
social inequality that still exists
between men and women. Male
legislators punished a woman for
not speaking the language of law,
or what is really the language of
men. By reducing the value of these
women’s voices, they also reduced
the value of the women themselves.
Much of the existing inequal-
ity is directly linked to the lack of
political representation by women.
Men dominate the policy-making
fields, despite the fact that they rep-
resent just half the population.
Yet when feminists point to this
huge disparity, excuses are all that
follow. Nobel laureate Jody Wil-
liams provided a telling example
of this. When she asked a UN
ambassador why so few women
hold leadership and director-level
roles within the United Nations, he
replied that there weren’t enough
qualified women.
A presumably intelligent and
well educated man believed that
not
enough
competent
women
existed to fulfill the role, though
evidence says otherwise. Accord-
ing to the Russell Sage Foundation,
a social science research center, not
only do women earn more master’s
degrees than men, they also earn
more Ph.D.s and an almost equal
number of professional degrees.
With these numbers, it is nearly
impossible to believe that qualified
women don’t exist for high-level
government jobs.
The problem is not women’s
lack of certification, nor is it lack
of legislation protecting women’s
rights. Inequality stems from the
fact that women are not the ones
writing policy and designing law.
Without
female
representation,
unequal laws are passed and social
inequality is perpetuated.
It is up to both women and men
to change this by helping women
campaign, get on the ballot and
ultimately win the race. When
women take their seat at the negoti-
ating table, they can begin to erase
inequality, and only then can femi-
nists begin to achieve their goal of
equality under the law.
Taylor Gunderson is an LSA junior.
Bring women to the negotiating table
A flawed system
CSG election process in need of reformation
T
his past week marked the official end to the annual Central
Student Government election cycle and, yet again, the system
has shown its weaknesses. After a week of litigation within
the University Election Commission, Make Michigan retained
the top seats within student government. Overall, voter turnout
increased, and all three parties — Make Michigan, The Team and
the Defend Affirmative Action Party — utilized a variety of tactics to
try and entice voting participation from a largely apathetic student
body. That said, voter participation still remained under 25 percent.
Furthermore, there were unmistakable problems associated with
campaigning throughout this cycle that are sadly only an addition
to a long pattern of political pettiness that has become synonymous
with CSG elections. If CSG hopes to be taken seriously as an authority
on campus, serious reforms are needed.
In recent memory, litigation has become the
face of CSG elections. For example, two years ago,
a lawsuit filed within the UEC that was flimsy, at
best — photographs were used to demonstrate
voters were influenced by candidates to vote for
a specific party — led to the disqualification of
the presidential and vice presidential candidates
who received the most votes. Last year, litigation
did not affect who won, yet it took five days for
election results to be certified — an excessive
amount of time.
This year has been no different; both Make
Michigan and The Team filed suits charging
each other with campaign violations in
the hopes of rendering the opposing party
disqualified from the election. A party can
be disqualified if it accumulates 10 or more
demerits, which are handed out by the
UEC for election code violations. One of
these violations — levied against The Team
— resulted in five demerits for dumping
water over a chalk advertisement on the
Diag supporting Make Michigan, which the
UEC qualified as “destruction of campaign
materials.” The evidence, in this case, is highly
questionable and even if true, the punishment
is exorbitant and unreasonable.
On the other hand, The Team filed a suit
against Make Michigan for harvesting 5,719
e-mails through a UPetition called “Crush the
Calendar,” which was created by LSA freshman
Lauren Siegel, Make Michigan’s campaign
manager. However, the UEC ruled it could not
find Make Michigan guilty of a violation because
“it is possible that she may have reasonably
believed that the students to whom she sent
promotional e-mails would be more likely than
any other student to support Make Michigan.”
Thus, in a seemingly clear violation of the CSG
code, the UEC decided not to act at all upon this
suit because — according to the commission —
anyone who signed the “Crush the Calendar”
UPetition was somehow more likely to vote for
Make Michigan than any other student despite
this petition having no affiliation with Make
Michigan whatsoever.
Make Michigan also filed a suit against LSA
senior Andrew Loeb for harvesting 534 e-mails
from the Lloyd Hall Scholars Program. However,
the UEC ruled The Team did not violate their
harvesting standards. Not only are CSG parties
resorting to increasingly undemocratic and
time-wasting tactics, but the body responsible
for holding candidates and party managers
accountable appears to allow elections to go on
with questionable rule enforcement.
The demerit system utilized by the UEC
needs to be reevaluated. Rather than subjecting
an entire party’s qualification to 10 demerits,
allocated by the UEC for violations of policy,
the demerit system should, instead, be tied to
vote accumulation — the more demerits a party
receives, the more votes should get deducted
from their overall total. Currently, the difference
between nine and 11 demerits is the difference
between life and death, even though it is relatively
easy to accumulate two or more demerits.
Above all else, CSG must return to acting
as an apolitical body. Students are turned off
by the constant badgering of campaigners and
quasi-political rhetoric espoused by candidates
across the campus. It is no surprise that voter
turnout — even though it increased this year —
stands at just 22 percent of the student body.
CSG has an immense capacity to affect
students in a positive manner. The onus is now
on our new leaders-elect — LSA junior Cooper
Charlton, LSA sophomore Steven Halperin
and the newly elected representatives — to
effectively guide our campus to a new era of
student governance, along with a revitalized
and professional campaign atmosphere. If this
does not happen, the same embarrassing cycle
will continue.
TAYLOR GUNDERSON | VIEWPOINT
FROM THE DAILY