Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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 — Thursday, February 18, 2016
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
E-mail Dan at Dancp@umich.EDu
DAN PARK
FROM THE DAILY
Prompt appointment needed
Furthermore, cases concerning divisive
issues such as abortion, affirmative action,
contraception, public unions and immigration
are all on the docket for this Supreme
Court term. By leaving Scalia’s seat vacant,
Republicans risk a 4-4 tie on many of these
controversial votes. This is a problem because
tie votes uphold the decision of the lower court
in that court’s respective jurisdiction, which
does not establish national precedent. If these
cases are heard by an eight-member Court in
the term that begins in October, a tie vote would
essentially mean the hearings were a waste of
the Court’s time. It is therefore essential that
the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation
by at least considering an Obama nominee.
Republicans argue that a nominee should
not be considered during the election cycle.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) and the rest of the GOP caucus maintain
that the people should have a say in choosing
a nominee through their vote in November.
While Republicans assert that nominating
a replacement during an election season is
misguided,
history
disagrees.
Throughout
history, there have been eight Supreme Court
nominations during election season, and six have
been confirmed. On average, it takes 25 days to
vote on a Supreme Court justice once nominated.
Constitutional duties, along with government
precedent, should not be suddenly suspended
because a presidential election is ongoing.
Obstructing the nomination process not only
spurs inflamed partisan divides, but it could also
disjoint the normal decision-making process
of the Court. The potential for numerous 4-4
split votes on many critical issues will mean
the decisions of the lower courts will be upheld
within their respective jurisdictions, but the case
does not establish precedent for later Supreme
Court cases. The American people need and
deserve a full Supreme Court so the nation can
have closure on issues of such critical importance.
The Republican-controlled Senate must
fulfill its obligation to the citizens of the
United States and work with the president to
confirm a new nominee. The Supreme Court
was designed, through lifetime appointments,
to stay the test of time and be greater than
the political squabbling of our country. The
late Justice Scalia himself best exemplified
this ideal when he requested that President
Obama fill an empty seat with Elena Kagan,
now the most liberal member of the Supreme
Court. Even though she contradicts Scalia
ideologically, he chose her because he believed
the Court needed a brilliant, qualified mind
arguing the most important issues of our day,
regardless of belief.
It is time for Senate Republicans to move past
partisanship and do what they were elected
to do. Nominating a Supreme Court justice is
one of the Senate’s most crucial constitutional
obligations and should not be a political fight.
Legislators cannot simply abandon their
constitutional duties and disrespect two
centuries of precedent — their jobs are too
important and the stakes are too high.
Incestuous, integral and in loving memory
T
oday is my great uncle Gail’s
memorial service.
I called my dad last Sat-
urday evening to
invite him and
my stepmom to
dinner
for
my
birthday when he
told me the news.
My dad, just wak-
ing up from a nap,
sounded groggy.
There
was
an
edge of sadness
in his voice.
“Aunt
Mar-
ian texted me,”
he
interjected.
“Uncle Gail passed away yesterday.”
“Wow,” I responded, recalling
the last time I had seen my grand-
ma’s brother-in-law. It was my dad
and stepmom’s wedding, held on my
grandma’s 75th birthday, in their
backyard. My grandma was more
than happy to share her birthday
with my dad and his new wife.
After a brief pause, I continued,
“I knew he wasn’t doing well, but
I didn’t know it was that bad. Do
you know when memorial service
is yet?”
There was no question in my mind
concerning my schedule: I was going
home to see my family.
***
I grew up in a small town — a vil-
lage — that, generally, I did not leave
for the first 18 years of my life. As a
senior in high school, I only applied
to two colleges, both less than an
hour drive from home. (Thankfully,
I was accepted at the University of
Michigan before having to apply to
Michigan State.) Leaving was excit-
ing, yet it simultaneously scared
me; I needed the stimulating expe-
rience of a completely different
place with the security blanket of
somewhere that was close to home.
Now, after almost five years in
college, I envision all of the things
I can accomplish, and I don’t want
to look back.
“If I don’t leave now, I don’t think
I ever will,” I told one of my cowork-
ers during a lull in customer traffic.
She rolled her eyes, understand-
ably, at my constant use of the
word village to describe my home-
town during our conversation. I
kept rambling.
“I don’t know, though. It’s really
hard. I love Michigan and I have a
really big family. All of my siblings
are still in Parma. All of them have
kids. I don’t want to miss anything.
But I feel like I need to see more of
the world and find the way I can best
help others. It’s weird to think about.
I feel so conflicted sometimes.”
Struggling with my past, pres-
ent and future, I went to visit my
personal essay professor, John
Rubadeau, during his office hours.
In our first conversation, I told
him about my family: My brother is
married to, and has a son with, one
of my best friends from high school.
He’s buying the house my three
siblings and I grew up in from our
dad. My youngest brother and his
pregnant girlfriend live with them.
My sister lived in the house with
her husband and (now four) kids for
nearly three years before moving
10 minutes outside the village. And
that’s just the surface.
Deliberating for a moment while
chewing his gum, John responded:
“Sounds incestuous.”
“Hmm,” I contemplated, sorting
through the facts about my family in
my head. “That’s a good word for it.”
But, after leaving his office that
day, something kept bothering me.
The connotation of “incestuous”
seemed so negative. I Googled the
definition:
1. Involving or guilty of incest
OK, my family is close, but not
that close.
2. (of human relations gener-
ally) excessively close or resistant to
outside influence, esp. as to prevent
proper functioning
Bingo. Incestuous implies some-
thing improper.
***
On Sunday evening, the day after
my dad told me about Gail’s death,
the local newspaper released his
obituary, which I’ve paraphrased
below. I read it online and was
amazed by the things I didn’t know
about my great uncle:
Lloyd “Gail” Reardon was born
in 1931 on County Farm Road on the
outskirts of the village of Parma. He
loved sports and went to the same
high school as me and nearly all of
my dad’s family; then, it was Parma
High School. He met my great aunt
Marian, my grandma’s sister, when
she stopped into Gail’s Friendly Gas
Station, now my uncle’s shop, Don
Marsh Service. They had six kids —
four sons and two daughters. In 1959,
the year before my father’s birth,
Gail became the youngest mayor
of Parma. He owned and operated
several successful businesses: Gail’s
Friendly Service gas station and
repairs, Parma Party Store, Gail’s
Pizza, Gail’s Car Wash, Reardon
Realty and probably a few I’m miss-
ing here. He was known to many as
“Mr. Parma.” His favorite mantra
was “Keep on keeping on.” He always
put others first.
Suddenly, a different, more fit-
ting term popped into my head.
Integral. Google made this clear for
me with a definition:
1. (adj) necessary to make a whole
complete; essential or fundamental.
Gail, and most of the other resi-
dents in our small town, played an
integral role in the history of Parma,
shaping the place it is today. He
planted a seed that extended well
beyond his six children and numer-
ous grandchildren. Uncle Gail did
so much for my family, his extended
family and so many other people. His
influence is everywhere — my young-
est brother’s middle name is Lloyd.
In the same way, Parma plays an
integral role in my history, shap-
ing who I am today. And, no matter
where I end up after graduation, I’ll
never let that go.
In loving memory of Lloyd “Gail”
Reardon
July 25, 1931 — Feb. 12, 2016
— Aarica Marsh can be reached
at aaricama@umich.edu.
AARICA
MARSH
A feminist undecided for 2016
I
n politics, labels are paramount. I’m
frequently reminded of this fact during
conversations with one of my older
siblings. Our discussions
— while usually respectful
— often devolve into a clash
of
policy
perspectives
between a republican and
the family’s designated
“bleeding-heart
liberal.”
More often than not, the
phrase is intended as a
light-hearted
jab,
but
there’s
certainly
some
truth to the title. My
opinions regularly lean a
little to the left. However,
I can’t deny that the
political identifiers my sibling and I attribute
to one another, from time to time, have led us
to misjudge each other’s beliefs and stances
on issues.
Republican. Democrat. Conservative. Lib-
eral. Independent.
With these designations — self-proclaimed
or not — come a variety of assumptions. In a
highly polarized political sphere, these titles
are often — and sometimes poorly — used as
societal determinants of which candidate is
supposedly best suited to occupy an office,
where a candidate should supposedly stand
on an issue, how voters supposedly should
vote and how they actually will vote. Momen-
tarily casting partisanship aside, the use of
labels such as “feminist” and “millennial”
have recently created tension among female
voters within the Democratic Party.
Addressing millennial women, renowned
feminist figureheads Gloria Steinem and
Madeleine Albright recently voiced their con-
cerns about the vast number of young female
voters supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders over
Hillary Clinton.
Steinem, viewing female support for Sand-
ers as perhaps an attempt by young women to
avoid accusations of a bias toward their own
gender, or as an attempt to seem more united or
more likable to their male counterparts, stated,
“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where
are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”
During a Clinton rally in New Hampshire,
Albright stressed the need for the younger gen-
eration’s support to continue progress toward
gender equality by saying, “We can tell our
story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot
of you younger women think it’s done … It’s not
done. There’s a special place in hell for women
who don’t help each other.”
Unsurprisingly, Albright and Steinem’s
commentary wasn’t well-received by young
female voters. Millennial women viewed the
remarks as condescending. Young women
interpreted the comments as yet another ren-
dition of a prevalent narrative told by older
generations that deems the millennial gener-
ation self-absorbed, lazy, unaware and short-
sighted. The statements could be viewed as
contradictory to feminist values. Feminism
— at its core — stresses the importance of a
woman’s ability to make her own decisions,
and a woman should be able to do so without
her individual agency being questioned.
Additionally, whether a woman decides
to vote for the only female candidate in the
party certainly doesn’t provide a measure of
her effectiveness as a feminist. The move-
ment is meant to be intersectional in its prac-
tice. Therefore, it’s crucial to recognize that
gender is merely one of numerous factors and
experiences capable of influencing an indi-
vidual’s vote.
However, the reactions to Steinem’s and
Albright’s remarks do highlight prevalent
issues within both the political campaign
process and the feminist sphere.
It’s understandable why generations of
older women and older female political fig-
ures are seeking solidarity among female
voters. Hillary Clinton faces a unique and
undoubtedly difficult situation as a woman
in politics and, more importantly, as a woman
whose entrance into the presidency would
make history.
Clinton, as a result of sexism, faces myriad
obstacles that her male competitors don’t.
Gender itself is an issue that arose in her first
presidential bid and remains one she must
carefully navigate in her present campaign.
Her status as a woman, if ignored, will likely
result in the public viewing her as inauthen-
tic and unlikeable. If she tries to acknowledge
her status as a woman, Clinton runs the risk
of not being taken as seriously as her counter-
parts or of taking advantage of her gender to
appeal to the female demographic.
Even recently, issues arose around the
topic of shouting during campaign speech-
es. While theatrics and shouting certainly
haven’t been in short supply for either party
during the campaign process, Clinton’s use
of tactics that her male competitors regularly
utilize is frequently interpreted by viewers as
overly aggressive and off-putting.
The commentary from Albright and
Steinem illustrates the existence of a profes-
sional, ideological and experience-related
MELISSA
SCHOLKE
gap between generations of women.
Women from the older genera-
tion may have more experience
with these double standards, and
research proves Steinem’s point
that women professionally “lose
power as they age.” Younger women
do need to take these factors into
account, and acknowledge that they
perhaps are privileged in ways their
predecessors weren’t.
Older generations may be eager
to increase concerningly low lev-
els of female representation in
government and to further along
initiatives to end inequality in a
variety of realms. However, they
must recognize many members of
the younger generation share their
aims. The older generation must
also be willing to accept that the
younger has its own set of experi-
ence with inequality and its own set
of challenges. For older feminists,
perhaps the only viable next step
guaranteed to break down barriers
is to elect a woman into the White
House. Yet younger voters may see
alternatives to continue achiev-
ing progress. A number of younger
women, in fact, claim the reason
they support Sanders is because
they believe his platform would be
more effective for ensuring equal-
ity and economic stability.
Feminism is not one-size-fits-all.
Rather than further exacerbate a
generational gap, perhaps the best
option for female Democrats is to
shift away from labels, expectations
and distinctions between older and
younger. Instead, voters need to
direct their focus to the candidate’s
stances on concrete policies.
Clinton inarguably has a vast
amount of beneficial executive and
foreign policy experience working as
the secretary of state, and has placed
a large emphasis on the importance of
paid family leave. Additionally, she’s
argued against the Hyde Amend-
ment. Conversely, Sander’s policies
concerning “Medicare for all” and
free college tuition are appealing to
a generation of women plagued by
debt, disillusioned by various aspects
of higher education and anxious
about achieving financial stability.
Over the years, I grew accus-
tomed to hearing the idea that votes
shouldn’t be swayed by political
labels or allegiances to a particular
party. Voters must now also be cau-
tious of allegiances toward a par-
ticular gender or a particular age
demographic. During this nomina-
tion period, voters shouldn’t place
emphasis upon the gender or the
superficial likability of the candi-
date, but rather on the candidates’
platforms and on their ability to
improve conditions for all individu-
als and make substantial progress.
In the case of this particular liberal
and feminist, I’m still undecided.
— Melissa Scholke can be
reached at melikaye@umich.edu.
T
he death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has caused
the already-volatile American political environment to reach a
new height. Republicans are now rallying behind the idea that
the next president should be the one to nominate a new justice. However,
President Obama has the constitutional obligation and right to nominate
someone, just as the Republican-controlled Senate has the constitutional
obligation to consider that nominee. Inaction on this issue due to overt
partisan politics is not the correct solution to this situation, and not a
precedent our government should establish.