represent
themselves,
these
organizations
are also University-sanctioned and operate under
the University’s jurisdiction. Administrators
have the power and the responsibility to
facilitate cultural shifts by establishing concrete
guidelines and engaging in collaborative
efforts with student organizations. The
meeting identified negative aspects of Greek
life, but ultimately failed to offer genuine
policy solutions.
The structure and emphasis of the meeting
were also problematic. E. Royster Harper,
vice president for student life, remarked in
an interview with the Michigan Daily that
the meeting was intended to emphasize the
University’s concern for students’ health and
wellness, not to scold them. However, Harper
made clear at the meeting that others often
perceive Greek life as racist, homophobic,
sexist and unsafe. Further, the consensus after
the meeting reflected disapproval of the event.
Ultimately, the administration came off as
punitive, putting many students on the defensive
and risking creating a rift that could damage
future efforts to effectively enact policy.
Given that the administration highlighted
more problems than it provided solutions, and
that no actual progress is likely to come of it,
the meeting comes off as a publicity stunt that
wasn’t meant to cause any tangible change.
Rather than condemn the entirety of Greek
life, the University should seek to acknowledge
the positive contributions individual chapters
make to campus and the community at large.
Reforms are needed, but generalizing the
collective behavior of the students within these
organizations will not bring forth any substantial
solutions. The problematic actions of individuals,
or even specific chapters, should not overshadow
Greek life members who are instituting reforms
and portraying the University in a positive light.
To remedy these issues, the University needs to
modify its approach in order to establish an open
dialogue and a more cooperative relationship
with these groups.
MICHIGAN
From Page 1
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
4 — Tuesday, September 15, 2015
N
ews has been pouring out of
Ann Arbor all summer. No
matter how far away you
were from hoMe, whether you were
studying abroad in Barcelona, intern-
ing on Wall Street, waiting tables on
Main Street or simply soaking up the
sun on the shores of Lake Michigan,
no Wolverine could bear four long
months without checking in on their
beloved campus. Between the dawn-
ing of the Harbaugh Era, the open-
ing of Mcity and the renovations on
North Campus, the summer of 2015
was by no means uneventful. One
Ann Arbor resident, Joshua Wade,
has been particularly busy.
In June, Wade filed a lawsuit
against the University (which by
itself is not entirely rare). This case,
however, has nothing to do with
affirmative action or sexual miscon-
duct. This case is about gun control.
Wade’s charge is simple: Univer-
sity policy states that no weapons can
be carried on University campuses
by anyone other than law enforce-
ment or the military. To Wade, this
policy violates the rights he finds in
both the United States and Michigan
constitutions. He carries weapons
for the defense of himself and his
loved ones and “just want(s) U-M
to come into compliance with state
law,” because “police unfortunately
can’t be everywhere … they can’t
protect everyone, as evidenced by
the fact that crime happens.” Uni-
versity spokesman Rick Fitzgerald
issued a statement shortly thereafter
announcing that the administration
will “vigorously defend” their policy
as a matter of safety.
Most observers of this case will be
able to see the merits of each side of
the argument, the complex conflict
of interest between Mr. Wade’s Sec-
ond Amendment rights and the Uni-
versity’s desire to ensure the safety
of its students. But in this case, there
are not two sides. Contrary to popu-
lar opinion and the agenda perpetu-
ated by thousands of gun advocates
in America today, this case should be
a no-contest, easy win for the Uni-
versity. Because when it comes to his
rights, Mr. Wade is absolutely and
without a doubt dead wrong.
Let’s break down the argument
in this case. The University can-
not ban the possession of weapons
on campus because the Second
Amendment guarantees the right
to bear arms, right? Wrong, and for
more than one reason.
If Joshua Wade read the exact
phrasing of keystone of his legal
argument, he would see that the
amendment begins: “A well-reg-
ulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State…” To the
founders, the right to bear arms was
exercised at Lexington and Concord,
not by Mr. Wade at the corner of Lib-
erty and State streets. Not until 2008
did the Supreme Court recognize the
right to bear arms as one belonging
to the individual. Not 1908, but 2008
— the year Rich Rodriguez came to
Michigan, President Barack Obama
was elected and the No. 1 song on the
charts was “Low” by Flo Rida. Up
until then, in Washington D.C. and
in school zones around the country,
there were local bans on owning a
firearm until cases like D.C. v. Hell-
er and United States v. Lopez at the
Supreme Court changed this (though
dissent remains).
Perhaps the greatest accomplish-
ment of conservatives on the issue of
guns is the heinous and widespread
oversimplification of what the Sec-
ond Amendment says. Americans like
Mr. Wade tend to adopt summarized
views of the Bill of Rights. The First
Amendment gives me the right to
free speech, the Second Amendment
says I can bear arms, etc. Reading
opinions from the Supreme Court,
however, this is hardly the case.
“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation
of the Second Amendment is one of
the greatest pieces of fraud … on the
American People … that I have ever
seen in my lifetime. The real purpose
of the Second Amendment was to
ensure that state armies — the militia
— would be maintained for the defense
of the state. The very language of the
Second Amendment refutes any argu-
ment that it was intended to guarantee
every citizen an unfettered right to
any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
And this wasn’t one of your run-of-
the-mill liberal justices. This came
from Warren Burger, stalwart conser-
vative from the Midwest.
Even if the Second Amendment
read as simply as most people imag-
ine it does, they would still have a
problem. As star-spangled awesome
as Americans see themselves, no
right is absolute. Look no further
than the conservative champion
and author of the opinion in the Dis-
trict of Columbia v. Heller decision,
Justice Antonin Scalia. “Like most
rights, the Second Amendment right
is not unlimited. It is not a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatso-
ever in any manner whatsoever and
for whatever purpose.”
Misconceptions have made guns
an integral part of our Constitution,
and this delusion has gone too far for
too long. Why Wade cannot see how
a community that is often plagued
by sexual assault, depression and
inebriated college kids would have
a vested interest in decreasing
the number of guns on campus is
beyond me. Read the amendment
for yourself, free from prejudice or
preconceived notion. And know that
gun control is not a liberal fantasy,
but a modern imperative.
— Brett Graham can be reached
at btgraham@umich.edu.
Bullets over Ann Arbor
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh,
Victoria Noble, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm,
Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
JAMIE BIRCOLL | VIEWPOINT
CLAIRE BRYAN | VIEWPOINT
Dear Mr. Vice President,
As I write this, I am watching
your interview with Stephen Col-
bert. You crack jokes; you are pen-
sive and reflective. You are at times
incredibly sad, and then you are
smiling again. I see you, the real
you. It’s the same Joe Biden who I’ve
seen on MSNBC and CNN, who sat
behind President Barack Obama at
the State of the Union and cheered
his accomplishments and his goals.
You do not put on the political game
face, switching personas with each
new interview or address or fund-
raiser. You are always Joe Biden.
Watching this interview, I feel
like I know you, have known you.
And not in the “I’d grab a drink
with that guy” sense with which
we so often measure our politicians.
You feel real, human. I see it in the
way you stare at the ground when
Colbert brings up your late son,
Beau. I see it in the enthusiasm with
which you talk about your son. It
feels genuine and loving, as a father
should talk about his son. I see your
strength, your ability to withstand
tragedy, to take it in stride and say,
“but I’m not yet finished with my
work.” You honor your loved ones’
memories by doing what you love,
by devoting yourself to the service
of others.
And that is why, Mr. Vice Presi-
dent, you need to run for the Office
of the President.
When I look out at the field of
candidates throughout the politi-
cal spectrum I don’t see people. I
see slogans, sound bites, names.
These candidates represent ideolo-
gies, with or without the party. But
you are human, you are real. You
represent beliefs, beliefs that, when
combined, create a mantra that says,
“this is me, this is Joe Biden.”
And those beliefs are good, hon-
est beliefs. You don’t fight for the
votes. You fight because it’s the right
thing to do. You are a practicing Cath-
olic, but you support both abortion
(with restrictions) and gay marriage
because you know that your views
should not restrict the rights of oth-
ers. You fight for middle and working
class America because you’ve seen
their plight, you know firsthand what
others can only read about.
Donald Trump thinks we need
to “make America great again,” but
we need to make Americans great
again. At some point, we Ameri-
cans started to accept that the First
Amendment was to be brandished
like a sword to cut down our neigh-
bors, rather than a shield to defend
against oppression. We became
complacent. Those in power looked
out and saw all that they had cre-
ated at the expense of others, at the
rights ignored, at the lives lost. And
in biblical fashion they said “and it
was good.” We have accepted the
status quo.
But you, Mr. Vice President, push
onward. You continue to draft and
push for policy even as the admin-
istration enters its final 16 months.
You are progressive, but not so
much as to alienate those who fear
the word “socialist.” You are pro-
gressive in the sense that you are
not content with the status quo;
you recognize that in our modern
political culture, “conservative” has
come to mean to look backwards
rather than forwards. But you know
better. As John F. Kennedy said
in 1963, “Change is the law of life.
And those who look only to the past
or present are certain to miss the
future.” We need someone who rep-
resents those aspirations to lead us.
So that when we look to him, we can
say that he not only represents our
beliefs, our values, but the very fab-
ric of being upon which this nation
was founded.
You’re a career politician but you
do it not for the status or the power,
but because you want to help people.
And all that time in office has given
you more experience than any other
candidate in the field. You have
demonstrated an acute understand-
ing of foreign affairs with more
experience in this field than Hillary
Clinton and John Kerry combined;
perhaps had we listened to you back
in 2006 and broken down Iraq into
specific regions for the Shiites, Sun-
nis and Kurds, we would not find
ourselves in this most splendid
quagmire we now face.
And on your own personal quag-
mires, those gaffes that the media
craves, that the public loves to
devour, I think you slip up because
you are friendly. You see everybody
as a good friend and there are few
boundaries between good friends.
And even so, those gaffes make you
authentic — you make a mistake and
you learn from it, as is human to do.
We need someone authentic to
enter the fray, difficult as that may
be for you. We need someone who
feels no entitlement to the presi-
dency, by name or by wealth or by
outsider status. We need someone
who has held more than one term
in office, someone who hides no
secrets, someone who can run a
sustainable campaign for a main-
stream, moderate American people.
We need someone real, someone
good. You wrote this in your book,
“Promises to Keep,” “For the world
to follow, we must do more than
rattle our sabers and demand alle-
giance to our vision simply because
we believe we are right. We must
provide a reason for others to aspire
to that vision. And that reason must
come with more than the repetition
of a bumper-sticker phrase about
freedom and democracy. It must
come with more than the restate-
ment of failed policy. It must come
with the wisdom to admit when we
are wrong and resolve to change
course and get it right.” That sounds
real and good to me.
And if I cannot convince you,
then at least let me praise you for
your interview on “The Late Show.”
You said, “Nobody has a right, in
my view, to seek that office unless
they’re willing to give it 110 percent
of who they are … but I find myself …
it just sometimes overwhelms you.”
This country was founded on the
idea of personal success, on a go-
get-‘em attitude. To admit that you
are not prepared, that you might not
have the fire, takes incredible cour-
age and principle. I understand why
you don’t want to run, but it’s the
exact reason you should.
Sincerely,
A cynic who has found his faith
restored.
Jamie Bircoll is an LSA senior
and a Daily arts editor.
Last Thursday, I sat in Hill Auditorium along
with thousands of other Greek life members
listening to the University’s top administrators.
I sat next to my best friends and role models,
whom I love and respect, but when my gaze wan-
dered past the faces around me, I was ashamed to
be a member of the entire Greek life population.
At this point, I know I’m not alone in lack-
ing Greek life pride. Interfraternity Council
President Alex Krupiak said it at the conclu-
sion of the meeting. Students interviewed by
the Daily said it afterward. My own soror-
ity’s former head of recruitment said it a few
days later. And I’m certain if most members
of Greek life sat down to write their own ideas
into some concrete form, they would also
say it.
This lack of pride isn’t just because of this past
January’s ski trip, or just because the campus
climate survey on sexual misconduct results told
us that Greek life members are 2.5 times more
at risk to be sexually assaulted than non-Greek
students, or just because of any of the negative
headlines that were screened in the PowerPoint
as we all took our seats.
In my experience, Greek life members often
critique the system (and by system I mean both
the chapters and the recruitment process) as
being weird, enormous and bizarre, but it has
“introduced me to my very best friends so I
couldn’t imagine not being a part of it.”
I heard those words when rushing during my
freshman year, I’ve texted those very words to
high school students who have asked me advice
on whether to rush or not rush, and I believe
those words are accurate and fair. In an entirely
unnatural and fun way, you can efficiently be
exposed to mass amounts of people. That in itself
is simultaneously exhilarating and comforting
for certain people, especially when entering a
very large undergraduate population.
But these accurate, fair and seemingly harm-
less words are exactly what’s so detrimental to
our Greek life system. It’s easy, in fact natural,
to identify and be proud to stand with the indi-
viduals who surround you: your friends and the
people you look up to. The values those individu-
als stand for are what you stand for, and if you
and these individuals make up the group — your
chapter — then you are proud of your chapter.
But when it comes to the larger picture — 32
Interfraternity Council fraternities, 16 PanHel-
lenic Association sororities, 12 multicultural
organizations and nine National Pan-Hellenic
Council organizations — you do not know the val-
ues of members in every single one of these chap-
ters, and therefore it becomes a lot harder to know
if you’re proud of the community as a whole.
In 1913, French engineer Maximilien Rin-
gelmann coined this fundamental idea in social
psychology: as a group becomes larger, each
individual member of the group becomes less
productive. That Greek life’s size is negatively
contributing to productivity is an argument I
wish I could be making. But size isn’t really the
crux of the issue. Yes, many members of Greek
Life are strangers to each other, but so are thou-
sands of other University students.
The problem with the Ringelmann effect lies
in identifying group goals. When it comes to
joining Greek life, it feels like there’s a lack of a
concrete, common and unifying end goal. In fact,
some of the best advice I have received when
wondering why I’m a part of an organization like
my sorority is to not take it too seriously.
When I get disheartened that an initiative
doesn’t launch or not enough girls show up to
the events I plan, I remind myself that I joined
this organization for fun. It isn’t a job that will
help further me along my career path. It isn’t a
class that will transfer to a letter grade on my
transcript. I’m choosing to learn from it: con-
versational skills, time-management skills, net-
working skills. It’s a positive experience in my
life but it isn’t my entire life or a portion of my life
that I’m dedicated to more than other organiza-
tions or jobs I have on campus. I’m not saying
this is true for everyone; there are some leaders
who are working really hard, but for the majority
of members I believe it is.
As part of the very large institution that is the
University, your goals are to grow as a leader,
student, person, what have you. As part of my
sorority, my goals are to grow as a leader and
organizer, understand myself through getting to
know different people and provide a community
for younger girls. As a part of the community of
Greek life my goals are to … what?
Answering that third question is a lot harder
than answering the previous two. This blank is
the reason for the disrespect, the lack of change
and the apathy I saw in my fellow Greek mem-
bers on Thursday.
The newest idea that came out of Thursday’s
meeting was Schlissel’s call to action: to save the
University’s reputation, because if we do not, it
will devalue our own reputation as Michigan
graduates, as well as that of those who came
before and will come after us. The call to action
feels like the closest thing Greek life has ever
come to in terms of a collective goal.
It’s troubling considering the Office of
Greek life has done a ton of work to answer my
question. They have outlined strategic goals
of what Greek life should be accomplishing:
unity, safety, public service and tradition, to
name a few, and outlined plans of how these
goals will be accomplished. These goals and
detailed plans aren’t really focused on when
freshmen are deciding to rush or not rush,
when bid-day pictures are posted or when
weekly chapter meetings are held.
Schlissel ironically pointed to the fact that
leadership and change must come from our
student leaders: the presidents of each of the
four councils. Something Greek life does pride
itself on is being a student-governed organiza-
tion, and it’s pretty impressive when you think
about it. Hundreds of young adults dedicate
hundreds of hours a week to systematically
categorizing themselves (even using complex
coding systems to do it) into social groups, cre-
ating rules to be followed and a police force to
enforce these rules.
But this leadership and organization that
students are motivated to participate in is
just a sliver of pride that needs to be utilized
more. Though I know council presidents have
been working hard to generate change, it does
feel as if the Office of Greek life has done the
planning for us and that administrators are
overseeing us. That combination inspires no
member of Greek life.
I believe the common reasons for joining
Greek life — please hear me when I say are not
at all the wrong reasons — are to meet new peo-
ple, attend events that get you out of your dorm
room freshman year and give back to the com-
munity through service and philathropy. But
very rarely do these initial reasons evolve into
the highly important goals of bright, driven
University of Michigan students. Very rarely
do students take on sorority or fraternity lead-
ership positions with the same sincerity that
they take their summer internships or their
job recruiting.
The people sitting in Hill Auditorium Thurs-
day evening are not apathetic people, but they do
not prioritize their chapter in a professional way.
Neither do I. I care about it in a way where I take
the good relationships it has given to me, but I
look at it as a social institution, just one part of
me, not my entire life and learning environment.
I know I can escape it if I don’t want to tailgate
one Saturday morning, so it doesn’t force me to
look it in the eye and work for policies that pro-
mote safer tailgating.
That’s the heartbreaking thing about Kru-
piak’s final statement, because though his
chapter means the world to him, it just doesn’t
Dear Joe, please run
Apathy toward accountability
mean enough for so many members.
University students are doing a lot
and, frankly, their social organiza-
tion isn’t going to keep them up late
at night thinking of ways to innovate
(though it might keep them up for
other reasons). It isn’t a student orga-
nization or an internship or a class
that they are passionate about. It isn’t
creating enough collective good for
the masses to take enough pride in it
to change it.
Claire Bryan is an LSA junior, a
senior editorial page editor, and vice
president of membership programming
at Alpha Chi Omega sorority.