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.

