supervise the University and direct expendi-
tures. To have a greater voice on campus, new-
MICH advocates for a student representative on
the board. Your Michigan told the Daily that a
student representative is not necessary, because
the CSG president currently has an allotted time
to present at every Board of Regents meeting.
Though this is a compelling rebuttal by Your
Michigan, we believe creating a position for a
student on the board would allow this represen-
tative to focus solely on the board, to be active in
discussions with the regents and not just to serve
as a presenter of information, and to provide a
second voice for students. The student repre-
sentative would actually sit with members of
the board and participate in dialogue, unlike
the CSG president.

The state constitution, beyond creating eight

elected, voting positions for the regents, addi-
tionally only specifies that the University presi-
dent sits on the Board of Regents as an ex-officio
member. It does not specify about any other ex-
officio members, so having a student reresenta-
tive is undoubtedly contestable. However, even if
newMICH does not succeed in winning a student
spot on the Board of Regents, Schafer and Griggs
have demonstrated they have working relation-
ships with administrators that will help them
enact changes regardless of whether there is a
student on the board.

Nonetheless, in light of this risk, it is notable

that CSG has a budget of $400,000 per year,
which means many items on newMICH’s plat-
form are achievable only if they receive funding
from the Board of Regents. This funding will
most likely only come if there is student repre-
sentation by a non-voting student member. With-
out representation by a student representative,
it is unlikely that newMICH will be able to fully
execute many of their goals.

All three parties do share a number of plans,

most notably the demand to increase minority
enrollment and improve diversity and inclusion
on campus. Your Michigan plans to “improve
recruiting and outreach efforts to underrepre-
sented high school communities...” Similarly,
newMICH wants to “improve the relationship
between UM and Detroit Public Schools.” Both
parties are aware that change in this area is diffi-
cult to achieve within CSG, but the relationships
newMICH has built with administrators, such
as Dean of Students Laura Blake Jones, show us
they are already on the way to working toward
these goals.

DAAP’s commitment to social justice is laud-

able, but their ideas will be very difficult to
achieve in practice. DAAP proposes to eliminate
the use of the SAT and ACT in favor of a system
similar to the Texas 10 percent plan, which guar-

antees any student in Texas in the top 10 percent
of their high school automatic admission to pub-
lic universities in the state. Though the SAT and
ACT have been shown to exhibit a racial bias,
this plan will be extremely difficult for DAAP to
implement without a working relationship with
the administration, which they currently lack
and have stated they have no interest in starting.

All parties agree mental health resources need

improvement, and we appreciate this collective
desire to change the status quo, but newMICH
is the only party that plans to fully expand both
Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Cen-
ter and Counseling and Psychological Services
to North Campus. In 2014, CAPS launched their
embedded model, which places counselors in
specific schools and colleges to meet an increase
in demand for mental health resources. Though
three of these counselors were assigned to North
Campus schools in July 2014, the need for mental
resources for students on North Campus still has
not been met and newMICH’s plans best address
this discrepancy. Additionally, newMICH can-
didates have also stated that they have a good
relationship with the director of CAPS, a con-
nection vital to a productive CSG-CAPS partner-
ship. At the CSG debate hosted by the Daily on
March 11, newMICH spoke of their plans to add
11 counselors to decrease the University’s 1:1,300
student to counselor ratio to 1:1,000. The party’s
specific plan to improve mental health resources
demonstrates knowledge of the system and what
exactly needs to be done that is not found among
their opponents.

While each party stressed the importance of

preventing sexual misconduct, we found that
newMICH’s plan has the most specific goals. In
addition to expanding SAPAC to North Campus,
newMICH wants to work to change SAPAC’s
24/7 crisis hotline to a 24/7 in-office presence.
In contrast, Your Michigan wants CSG to serve
as an “ally” to SAPAC to create culture shift and
plans to expand the Panhellenic Peer Educa-
tor program to other clubs and sports teams.
We appreciate both initiatives, and would hope
that any winning party would try to incorporate
their opponent’s ideas. An interesting addition
to the mental health conversation on campus
came from DAAP. At the CSG debate hosted by
the Daily, they suggested the increase in mental
health problems came directly from the lack of
an inclusive environment on our campus. DAAP
aims at solving mental health by addressing cam-
pus culture issues first.

newMICH has the candidates and the ideas

to make a change on campus. They will advocate
for better mental health resources, more effec-
tive resources for victims of sexual misconduct
and an increase in student voice on the Board of
Regents. A CSG governed by newMICH would
make incremental changes in the right direction.

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 — Wednesday, March 23, 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

I believe there’s a sense of achievability that

comes with being on a college campus, especially
one as prestigious as this university’s. We all came
to Ann Arbor with the belief that our experiences
here would be life-changing; that we would, in
some way, make an impact on our surroundings
and be remembered by the students following
after us. Ever since freshman orientation, we’ve
been told that we’re the “leaders and best”
because we’ve been accepted into the University
of Michigan, and therefore we will someday
change the world. And despite the endless hours
of stress that this institution will end up putting
us through, there’s a sense of invincibility, a
sense of invulnerability, that comes with being a
University of Michigan student.

In many ways, this type of environment suits

a college campus. It helps to foster ideas and
creativity, and it encourages students to take
the risks that will make them better workers
and thinkers in the future. It’s this type of self-
confidence that has inspired great thinkers and
scholars for millennia. Accepting challenges
that may or may not be out of one’s league has
become a crucial part of the college process,
and college campuses foster an environment
that tells everyone they can and will succeed at
whatever project they take on. Failure is a taboo
word, never discussed and never accepted.

But Icarus flew too close to the sun, and

likewise,
Michigan
students
sometimes

overstep their bounds. This happens all over
the campus, when students decide to talk
about topics they don’t necessarily understand,
arguing for or against certain positions and
then taking action based on those discussions.
Especially in the case of social justice, students
feel that because they took a sociology course
or attended a protest that they are qualified to
speak on behalf of a marginalized group they
may not be a part of.

In some ways, this can be a positive thing; at

least people are aware of and discussing issues
that really are important to the world. But on the
negative side, what type of information is being
spread? Is this information truly helpful to the
marginalized group, or is it actually working to

silence and oppress these individuals more?

I recently attended a discussion about

anxiety and depression where the facilitators
had not been trained to talk about the specific
topic at hand. As a result, one of the facilitators
inadvertently insulted a participant for the
decisions they made with their body. In their
defense, the facilitators were very receptive to
the criticism they received from the attendees.
In my opinion, the organization, who does
do great things on campus and of which I
am a proud member, should have been more
sensitive and hired trained professionals to
host this dialogue.

This type of insensitivity is also prevalent in

discussions regarding sexual assault on campus.
I recently heard someone running for Central
Student Government talk about this topic using
heteronormative pronouns, with “her” referring to
the survivor and “him” referring to the perpetrator.
Using this type of language demonstrates a
lack of awareness, as people within the LGBTQ
community face sexual violence at a distressing rate
and is detrimental as it takes away the voices of the
people within this community, discouraging them
from seeking help.

Here at the University, we are told that we can

do anything. On this campus, people have found
the inspiration to become doctors, writers, movie
stars and politicians. This environment has
cultivated some of the best learners and thinkers
of our time. As students here, we are constantly
being told that nothing is out of reach and that
our work will someday change the world. But
we are never told that in some situations it’s not
our place to speak out, that it’s OK to be quiet.
Although it may be hard, sometimes admitting
you don’t know enough about an issue to act on
it is the most impactful thing a person could do. I
will freely admit there are a lot of issues I would
not be confident to speak out on, knowing that
my well-intentioned words could accidentally
harm someone. In this type of situation, the
best course of action is to educate oneself before
moving forward.

Elena Hubbell is an LSA freshman.

O

n a beautiful spring day last
week,
President
Barack

Obama strolled into the Rose

Garden
and

executed
what

might
be
the

most
brilliant

political move of
his
presidency.

He
introduced

Merrick Garland,
an
unimposing

figure who was
visibly moved by
his nomination to
the highest court
in the land. The 63-year-old jurist
called it “the greatest honor of his life”
before correcting himself, noting that
he could not forget the comparable
honor of his wife agreeing to marry
him. Garland came off as incredibly
likable and given the political climate,
the president’s move is ingenious.
And yet I cannot help but be partially
disappointed.

In all likelihood, Merrick Garland

will sit on the Supreme Court. Nothing
is definite, and I will avoid making
the brash claims that some senators
and journalists have made over the
course of the last week, but the current
situation favors President Obama and
his party in a handful of ways; therein
lies the genius. Senate Republicans
have made it abundantly clear that
their position will not change. Majority
leader Mitch McConnell commented
that the GOP’s unwillingness to
consider any nominee was “about
the principle, not a person.” Just six
senators have indicated they would
be willing to meet with Garland, and
only Mark Kirk (R–Ill.) has called for
an up-or-down vote. There will be no
vote before the election in November.

For Democrats hoping to reclaim

the Senate and for Hillary Clinton,
Obama’s pick is great news. What
better demonstration of Republican
obstructionism than refusing to even
hold a hearing for someone who is
consistently said to be moderate,
fair and qualified? According to the

Martin-Quinn
scores,
ironically,

Garland would sit firmly on the court’s
liberal wing; but what matters is the
public perception and the narrative
that voters see played out in the media
— that he is a centrist and an effort
at compromise on the part of the
president.

How can GOP senators like Pat

Toomey,
Kelly
Ayotte
and
Rob

Portman, all seeking reelection in
battleground
states,
defend
this

action? Add in Donald Trump as the
presumptive nominee and suddenly
the Republican Party becomes defined
by immaturity in 2016. Meanwhile,
Merrick Garland not only paints the
Democrats in the light of maturity and
compromise, but he also highlights
hypocrisy and partisan gridlock on
the other side of the aisle.

Recently,
the
prospect
of
a

confirmation vote after the election
was ruled out by Senate GOP
leadership, with McConnell saying
he “can’t imagine that a Republican
majority in the United States Senate
would want to confirm in a lame-duck
session.” But talk is cheap. Should
Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders
win in November (not exactly a tall
order against The Donald), why
would conservatives wait for the next,
undoubtedly more liberal, nominee?
The next president will nominate
two to three justices to the Court
as it is, and if the Democrats win
big in November, rejecting Garland
would mean allowing a sizable liberal
majority. Obama’s nomination of a
centrist allows him to play good cop/
bad cop with his successor, which
strengthens Garland’s chances at
confirmation.

For all of these reasons, the

nomination of Merrick Garland is a
demonstration of impeccable political
strategy on the part of the White
House. But that doesn’t mean he’s
the perfect nominee for the country,
especially for the seat he is about to fill.

Antonin Scalia, though a staunch

conservative with little in common
with Garland, was a vocal advocate

for diversity on the bench. In his
dissent from the ruling in Obergefell
v. Hodges, the case that ruled same-
sex marriage constitutional, Scalia
bemoaned how unrepresentative he
and his colleagues were of the country
at large. The Court, he wrote, “consists
of only nine men and women, all of
them successful lawyers who studied
at Harvard or Yale Law School,” and
Garland would continue this trend.
Before Scalia’s passing, eight justices
grew up on either the East or West
Coast, with four coming from New
York City alone. All but one have been
a circuit court judge. Garland would
make the fourth Jewish justice on the
Court and the fifth white man.

Writing opinions takes more than

legal expertise — it often takes life
experience. When conferring on civil
rights cases in the late 20th century,
the justices turned to Thurgood
Marshall for his experience as an
African-American man in a previously
segregated society. When deciding
cases on the topic of campaign finance,
Sandra Day O’Connor, the only justice
at the time who had ever run for office
in her career, shed important light on
the context of the legal question. But
what does Merrick Garland bring in
terms of diversity? He’d be the only
justice on the bench from Illinois.
That’s about it.

No one can deny that Merrick

Garland’s nomination is a political
move.
Whether
it’s
meant
to

embarrass Senate Republicans or
give Hillary Clinton a boost with
moderates in November is yet to
be seen. But what is nearly certain
is that President Obama’s third
nominee to the Court is brilliant,
fair-minded and professional. Given
the current political landscape,
he will likely sit on the Supreme
Court someday in the near future.
Unfortunately, this comes at the cost
of judicial diversity, which may have
to wait for the next administration.

Brett Graham can be reached

at btgraham@umich.edu.

T

he Undergraduate Library
isn’t the only place in
town to get books, though

I’m sure many
students
don’t

know about the
alternative: the
Ann Arbor Dis-
trict Library, or
AADL for short.
For students from
out of state or
even out of town,
AADL
probably

doesn’t
factor

highly into their
day-to-day
rou-

tine. This strikes
me as strange, simply because I’m so
deeply in love with this library and
all it offers to the community.

Sure, there are weeks that go by

when I don’t venture down William
Street to do homework among child-
height bookshelves in the warm and
brightly colored kids’ section, but
barely a week passes when I don’t
at least set foot inside of the down-
town library. More often, I’ll make
a quick stop to check the hold shelf
and peruse in search of new com-
ics while I wait for my bus to pull up
across the street. I grew up reading
in this library, or at one of its four
other branches around town, and
AADL has always been a part of my
life. I can’t really imagine waiting for
the bus without first going across the
street to check for books on hold.

Laura Raynor, a Youth and Adult

Services librarian who has worked
at AADL for many years, empha-
sized that the library’s mission is to
reach as many people as possible and
to serve the public in whatever way
makes the most sense.

“We’re always thinking about our

population,” she said in an interview
with the Daily. “Who are we try-
ing to reach? And how can we do that
in creative new ways that will keep
the library vital in the community.”
Because of this, the library has been
working to expand its collection in
recent years by making objects such
as art prints, book-club kits and house-
hold tools from telescopes to sewing

machines available for checkout.

“We’ve really thought carefully

about what should be available for
checkout that won’t compete with
the local businesses in town,” Raynor
explained. While I mainly go for the
books, it’s always fun to walk past
the art prints and watch kids play
with the music mixers or magnifying
glasses on display.

“Programming is one of our pri-

orities, and we reach out to all ages,”
Raynor said. In addition, AADL
offers a number of programs — from
video game tournaments to work-
shops on getting published — that are
free to the public. Aside from impart-
ing skills or just offering a good time,
the events also foster a sense of com-
munity, allowing friends and families
a chance to do something fun togeth-
er or giving people the chance to
connect and make friends over their
shared interests.

The thought that many students at

the University don’t know about such
an impressive and versatile resource
right here in town is somewhat of
a downer for me. I’ve found books
at AADL that for whatever reason
weren’t available in the University’s
library system, and I’ve passed many
a productive hour getting homework
done at the spacious tables present in
every branch. I’ve picked up unusual
titles at the Friends Book Shop, a won-
derfully affordable place for used-
book shopping inside the downtown
location. I’ve even won a couple of
gaming tournaments in my day.

This is why I was thrilled to learn

AADL has been forging new connec-
tions with the campus community in
recent years. Booths on the Diag and
visits to classrooms have helped to
spread the word about the library’s
services, as have collaborations with
the University’s library system. Cer-
tain events such as Proyecto Avance:
Latino Mentoring Association meet-
ings, which pair students in the Resi-
dential College’s Spanish program
with families seeking help with
English as a second language, and
Nerd Nite, a fun monthly trivia event
held at the bar LIVE, have served to
expand AADL’s reach all the way to

people of my own age group.

I find it interesting that some stu-

dents, then, might come to know the
library through these outreach pro-
grams, while my understanding of
AADL comes from years of explor-
ing its offerings. Raynor emphasized
that no matter how innovative AADL
tries to become by incorporating
technology and new materials into
the catalog, the traditional collection
of books, magazines and movies still
sees a lot of use.

Raynor says visitors come to the

library seeking a place of comfort.
“They can find quiet here — all of
the stereotypical library things are
still in place, because we still see the
need is there.” For her, being a librar-
ian is about watching kids grow up at
the library, where they can develop a
life-long love of books and learning.
That passion is present inside any
branch of AADL, which truly serves
as a focal point where members of
the vibrant Ann Arbor community
can come together and learn — from
the resources around them as well
as from one another.

At the end of the day, I go to the

public library because it’s free,
it’s convenient and it’s familiar.
It’s what comes to mind when one
thinks of the word library. In many
ways, I did much of my growing
up between the old brick walls
and metal shelves, and among the
thousands of pages and stories
contained in just the downtown
branch alone. I don’t intend to stop
using this collection, even with
all the resources on campus that
are made available to me because
of my student status. That may
be partly because, even for those
with no library card, it’s always
free to walk down William Stret
and step through those doors. Stu-
dents who are interested can apply
for a card for free. With or with-
out that, find a good book or your
favorite TV show on Blu-ray, grab
an open table or study room and
stay as long as you want.

Susan LaMoreaux can be

reached at susanpl@umich.edu.

The other library

SUSAN

LAMOREAUX

BRETT
GRAHAM

When not to speak out

Obama’s strategic nomination

NEWMICH From Page 1A

ELENA HUBBELL | OP-ED