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
4 — Friday, March 11, 2016

C

entral Student Government elec-
tion season is upon us. Over the next
few weeks, you will be accosted by

candidates as you walk through the Diag
and you will receive scores of social media
reminders to vote. Come election day, if
you vote, chances are you will either vote
for the party your friend is in, for the party
that annoys you the least or write in some
campus celebrity. If you go with the latter
option, more likely than not you will want
to write in Jim Harbaugh. Many of your
classmates will do the same, and Coach
Harbaugh will take third or fourth place,
depending on how many viable parties run.
Conventional wisdom says these votes will
be thrown away. But that might not be true.

The Central Student Government Con-

stitution (yes, there is such a thing) states,
“No representative may run for election
or hold office representing a constituen-
cy of which that person is not a member.”
This means that a representative must be
“enrolled or actively working toward their
degree.” Nowhere else does the Constitu-
tion mention qualifications for office. That
settles the question, right? Jim Harbaugh
isn’t working towards a degree, therefore he
cannot be president. Not quite.

The CSG Constitution uses very specific

language. It uses the term “representative”
only when it refers to members of the legis-
lative branch — the Assembly. When it refers
to the president, it uses the term “president.”

When it refers to members of Central Student
Government as a whole, it uses the terms
“members” and “officers.”

There is a legal canon of statutory con-

struction called “expressio unius est exclu-
sio alterius,” which means the expression of
one thing comes at the exclusion of others. If
you state one item, and not another, you only
meant to include that one item.

Note that the one clause in the Constitu-

tion containing an enrollment restriction
only mentions representatives. It does not
say “members” or “officers.” Thus, using the
expressio unis canon, the text of the Consti-
tution states that anyone — student or not —
can be president, but only those enrolled as
students working toward their degrees can
be representatives. If the Constitution want-
ed that restriction to apply to all members
of CSG or the president, it would have used
“members” or “officers,” as it does in other
sections. Likewise, if it wanted to include
the president in that restriction, it could have
stated, “A representative and the president,”
or included a similar provision in the article
on the executive branch. But it does not.

Interpreting the Constitution — and any

legal document — should remain faithful to
the text. The text of the CSG Constitution is
clear as to who is eligible to serve as president.
Jim Harbaugh can serve as CSG president.

— John Lin is a Public Policy graduate student.

Harbaugh as CSG president?

A

t the beginning of Sunday’s
Democratic
presidential

debate in Flint, moderator

Anderson Coo-
per
informed

his
viewers

about the cata-
strophic
state

of Flint’s water
system.

“Now, we’ve

come to Flint
because this is
a city in crisis,”
Cooper said. “A
city where, as
you
probably

know, the tap
water is toxic.”

In other words, Cooper was say-

ing that by conducting the debate
here, the national media’s atten-
tion, and, by extension, the entire
country’s attention, was turning to
this city, perhaps as a way of show-
ing solidarity with the victims of the
Flint water crisis. Throughout the
rest of the debate, both candidates
did allude to Flint and the need to
give this city attention.

How much does it actually help

the cause if we stage an event here
— one single event — and then pack
it all up and keep on kicking the can
down the trail? In fact, I would argue
that this whole debate distinctly
hurts the Flint community. If only
for a moment, it gives the American
people the sense that we are doing
enough, because the mainstream
media and political establishment
are giving this city the attention
it deserves. For Christ’s sake, they
even hosted a debate there! In that
horrible, impoverished city! They
must, then, really care!

One of the first questions posed

at the debate dealt with the con-
crete action the candidates would
take in Flint, long after this
momentary spotlight dims. Ander-
son Cooper asked, “Why should
the people of Flint believe that
you aren’t just using this crisis to
secure political points?”

In her response, Hillary Clin-

ton cited her long political career
as evidence that she will be here to
stay, that she genuinely cares about
the people of Flint. “I think because

throughout my public career I have
been evening the odds for people
in every way that I could,” Clinton
said. “I will be with Flint all the way
through this crisis…”

Upon
further
examination,

Clinton’s rather meaningless and
platitudinous statement about her
loyalty to marginalized members
of society does not hold weight. She
was a fierce supporter of Bill Clin-
ton’s 1996 welfare reform, which
sought to end “welfare as we know
it.” Clinton’s reforms tore apart poor
communities by severely limiting
access to social security benefits and
food stamps.

The crucially destructive element

of Clinton’s reform, the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportu-
nity Reconciliation Act prohibited
welfare to mothers under 18 years
of age and denied aid for addition-
al children for mothers who were
already on welfare. This legislation
did allow for mothers in school to
recieve welfare; however, it assumes
that one has resources in her life to
provide for a child and stay in school.
Of course, this is only true for the
most privileged among us. Clinton
sought to create a system where, in
order to receive welfare, one had
to work or be in school. This was
meant to promote individuality and
productivity. Additionally, because
of Clinton’s 1994 Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act,
the largest crime legislation in this
nation’s history, people returning
from prison were received at home
with disdain; Clinton’s legislation
ignited the stigma that still sur-
rounds ex-prisoners today. Nobody
would hire them. In turn, they could
not receive welfare. The Clintons,
together, created this vicious, unfor-
giving, dividing cycle that Michelle
Alexander, among other scholars,
has dubbed the New Jim Crow.

And yet, here Mrs. Clinton was

on Sunday evening, spouting off
once again a stump speech of sorts,
deceitfully trying to convince resi-
dents of this city that she has always
supported them, has always stood
for those who face the longest odds.

Bernie Sanders, responding to

the same question, discussed how
he had met with residents of Flint

to hear about their struggles: “(I
held a) town meeting, which was as
nonpolitical as I could make it, for
hundreds of people to tell me and
the world through the media exactly
what was happening here in Flint.”

One member of this community

who knowingly avoided Sanders’
private community meetings was
Melissa Mays, the founder of Water
You Fighting For, an activist group
whose target is clean water. In an
interview with John Whitesides,
Mays explained her absence.

“I’m not going to be used like that.

I’m not going to be a token. Do some-
thing first, then I’ll show up.”

Mays raises a crucial point: Sand-

ers — and the rest of the political
arena — cannot expect everyday
citizens to put their lives on hold to
hear them speak, when Sanders and
his colleagues have not reciprocated
and have not taken action in the
name of justice for these people. Of
course, neither candidate has had
the time or space to do anything
concrete — they are each busy run-
ning a national campaign. But all of
these words, from both candidates,
given their past actions in relation to
Flint or communities demographi-
cally similar to it, are absolutely
meaningless. And so this debate
cannot be the only national spotlight
that Flint receives. It cannot be, for
millions of us, our only exposure —
I hesitate to even call it that — to
what is going on in Flint and in mar-
ginalized communities across the
country. We have an obligation to go
forward, to do more, to educate our-
selves and to help in concrete ways
that the political establishment is
unable to match.

Both candidates’ flat responses,

then, highlight the issue: Staging
the debate in Flint on Sunday night
does not help the cause because it
does not concretely aid our suffer-
ing brothers and sisters in this rav-
aged city. If anything, the strategic
staging of this political event numbs
the national audience to its inaction.
Ultimately, we are rendered more
profoundly ignorant of, and improp-
erly content with, our inaction.

— Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be

reached at izeavinm@umich.edu.

The superficial media “spotlight”

ISAIAH
ZEAVIN-
MOSS

M

y feet drag across the cement,
slowly shuffling before abruptly
stopping to avoid face planting

into a purple backpack.
I take a deep breath,
trying to calm myself. It
is a passive aggressive
breath. My sigh is due to
the girl in front of me who
is focused on her phone,
her frozen fingers moving
across the screen faster
than mine ever could, the
boy in front of her has
frozen fingers, too, and
so on. As if slow walkers
were not enough, I looked
all around me, seeing the Diag as a sea of
individuals who are there but somewhere
else — phones with people attached, a line
of robots trudging to class.

Yet, I am a hypocrite. I do it, too. Even in

rooms with clocks, I sometimes take out my
phone to check the time and end up doing
something else without even realizing it.
Maybe it is the distraction I like. I grew
up in a very rural community and the area
of the woods I lived in did not receive the
Internet well. My addiction may not be as
profound as others’, simply because my
technological skills lack comparatively, but
I have watched more pointless YouTube
videos since coming to college than would
ever be considered necessary.

Lately,
the
ever-growing
addiction

and reliance on technology has become
overwhelming. Time and history have shown
us we can survive without technology, but
what can we do about it now? Of course
technology is not just mindlessly used, it
has become an integral part of academic
life and post-graduate hopes. As students,
there are innumerable professional goals to
be achieved, and with many fields utilizing
the technology that has been developed,
how rational is avoiding this emerging

dependence? From the current access to
online class materials to reserching for
and writing letters, from networking to
searching for employment opportunities, all
together staying away from technology does
not seem either possible or beneficial.

Despite this, I cannot help but feel pathetic

(in addition to agitated) when I see the slow
lull of text-shuffling, endless narcissistic
selfies, and my own Facebook history, where
it seems I have searched every person I have
ever known. These habits often can waste
time, distract from schoolwork, cause people
to become more sedentary and lead to other
negative effects. Sometimes I walk into walls
when I am texting, but technology addiction
can be truly dangerous. Thirty-three percent
of adults admit to texting and driving, causing
about nine deaths every day from cellphone-
related distracted driving. While we may not
be able to completely detach, we should stop
the compulsive behaviors that can be harmful.

Breaking habits is hard. I am 19 and still

struggle with biting my nails when I am
nervous, let alone conquering a fixation
that seems to have overtaken our whole
society. I always tell myself I’ll try to fix
the problem starting tomorrow, always
tomorrow. That’s just another way of
technology sucking away our time. Luckily,
some people find solutions where most
do not. This May, I am participating in
the New England Literature Program, a
University of Michigan-sponsored program
where students hike along the eastern coast,
gaining nine English credits along the way,
and which prohibits participants from
using technology in order to encourage
engagement with the tangible world around
them. How great it must be to be given six
weeks to form better, healthier habits.

With any luck, most of us will have at

least six weeks to try something new.

—Payton Luokkalla can be reached

at payloukk@umich.edu.

W

hen I first began fill-
ing out required health
and emergency contact

forms to send to the University of
Michigan as an undergraduate, my
mom said to me, “Don’t just put
your dad and me as emergency con-
tacts.” Seeing the confused look on
my face, she went on to explain that
of course she would like me to put
her as one of my emergency con-
tacts, but given that I was going to
be in Michigan, relatively far away
from her and my dad who both live
in California, they could be of very
limited help in some situations.
Someone else echoed a similar sen-
timent a little while later, when
they advised us to have someone
in-state for the University to con-
tact in an emergency. Though par-
ents want to help and will try to
help, they may end up feeling hope-
less and all it may do is scare them.

In many ways, this made sense,

but this thought resurfaced in my
mind a few weeks ago. Trudging
through the streets of Ann Arbor
on my way to the library down-
town, excited to see Tiffany, a girl I
tutor at Proyecto Avance. I glanced
at my phone and saw an alert from
a news station in my hometown that
read, “Breaking: Child hit, killed
by car in Richmond.” My natural
reaction was, of course, sadness.
And for the rest of the evening, I
kept feeling an underlying sadness,
which seeped into the time I always
looked forward to with Tiffany.
That was when I knew I needed a
break from the 24-hour news cycle
that has become all too prevalent
with the advent of the smartphone
and apps that give us access to news

at the touch of a button. I needed a
break.

This moment allowed me to

reflect on how inundated I was
with information: Partly because
I had been working at the Daily,
and knowledge of all current
events seemed imperative, and
partly because I subscribed to
updates from five different news
outlets: my hometown news sta-
tion (KTVU), CNN, The New York
Times, MLive and BBC. In fact, a
few weeks prior to this moment,
I had been subscribed to updates
from The Huffington Post as well.
But walking back from tutoring
that day, I realized I was still sub-
scribed to too many news alerts.
Did I need to be alerted by CNN,
The New York Times and BBC that
Hillary Clinton won the South
Carolina primary? Now that I was
living in Michigan, why did I need
to know there was a crash on the
Bay Bridge and there was approxi-
mately a 30-minute backup get-
ting on to the bridge? Similarly,
was it necessary or healthy for me
to know about every shooting that
went on in my hometown?

Before I go further, I want to

stress that I’m not saying I want
to be ignorant of what is going on
in the world. Ignorance isn’t bliss.
Ignorance is ignorance, and I don’t
want to be ignorant. In fact, one
of the advantages of having easy
access to so much information is
that you can stay informed, under-
stand what is going on in the world
and participate actively in shaping
the world. But I believe there is
such a thing as being too informed
— something that I only fully real-

ized recently.

A constant stream of infor-

mation isn’t just an option; it’s
assumed that we want it this way.
On my iPhone, unless I actively
turn off notifications, I receive
updates from every app that I
download. This constant stream
of information is also bad for our
health: studies have shown that
having access to all of this infor-
mation at the tip of our fingers
increases stress. As an excessive
worrier myself, I will do every
little thing I can do to reduce my
stress and improve my health.

I have since turned off notifica-

tions for the majority of news apps,
forcing myself to pare it down to
the most relevant news sources.
There is something to be said for
the proximity to an event.

At times it is better to not know

everything going on in every corner
of the Earth at every minute, espe-
cially if you have no ability to do
anything about what has occurred.
It is important to know the rates of
pedestrian-car accidents, as it may
help pass legislation, but learn-
ing that someone was hit by a car
approximately 3,000 miles away
from you is sad, and that’s just it.
When I read it, I grieve for the
child, the family, the life lost. But
that is all I can do. I feel helpless —
powerless and stressed — just as a
parent would who was their out-of-
reach child’s only emergency con-
tact. Sometimes you need to tap out
before you get tapped out.

—Anna Polumbo-Levy is a

senior editorial page editor.

Tapping out from news

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

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters should be
fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full

name and university affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Breaking millennial habits

PAYTON
LUOKKALA

E-mail in Chan at tokg@umiCh.Edu
IN CHAN LEE

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY | OP-ED

JOHN LIN | OP-ED