C
entral Student Government elections
are currently underway. Save for the
spammy Facebook messages you’re
likely receiving from your
friends — or “friends,”
broadly
construed
—
asking you to vote for
them, you may not have
paid much attention to the
elections at all. Students
on this campus certainly
don’t face a shortage of
challenges — but many of
them don’t necessarily see
CSG as the body destined
to solve them.
That needs to change.
Over the past two years, I’ve had the
opportunity to work with and get to know
David Schafer and Thomas Hislop, two of
the candidates for CSG president. Last fall,
Schafer and I served together on the College
Republicans Executive Board. Hislop and I
are both in the Ford School of Public Policy,
and have taken three classes together.
I’ve seen firsthand how both candidates
approach problems, develop solutions and
implementation strategies. Both candidates
are great people, and I have no doubt that
they would both engage with their work as
president at a high level.
That
said,
I
had
absolutely
no
reservations when I voted Your Michigan
for CSG president and
vice president. If you’d
like to see a CSG that’s
more effective, efficient
and equitable, I’d highly
encourage you to vote
Your Michigan as well.
Hislop is pragmatic and
results-oriented.
Your
Michigan’s platform —
which includes tangible,
realistic plans to expand
and improve mental health care on campus,
combat sexual assault through peer-to-peer
education and increase funding for student
efforts to recruit potential Wolverines from
underrepresented backgrounds — reflects that.
I sat down with Hislop and his running
mate, Cam Dotson, to discuss their priorities
for their presidency and vice presidency if
elected. After three years of watching CSG
administrations spend undue amounts of
time engaging non-actionable issues — like
whether or not to advise the University
of Michigan to divest from all firms doing
substantive business in Israel — I wanted to
know whether the duo had a realistic idea
of what CSG could accomplish. I asked them
what they thought, fundamentally, they
believed to be the role of CSG on campus.
“CSG is here to improve the day-to-day life
of the Michigan student,” Hislop said. “That
is their primary role — to support them, to
make them feel safe, to make sure they feel
comfortable here and to make sure that the
resources they have are there for them and
are the best that they can be.”
Your Michigan’s policies start with this
fundamental understanding. They prioritize
issues that matter most to students and have
solid implementation strategies that target
the biggest challenge to resource creation
and program support — funding. To name
just one example, Hislop and Dotson plan
to relocate funding from low- to high-
impact projects by analyzing uptake rates
of seemingly underused resources, like bus
services at odd times.
But perhaps the best example of the duo’s
superior issue prioritization is a policy that
they don’t support, not one they do.
The Daily’s editorial board endorsed
newMICH candidates Schafer and Griggs
largely due to their plans to work toward
creating a non-voting, ex-officio position
for a student representative on the Board
of
Regents.
The
representative
would
essentially serve as a student liaison to the
board to advocate for, well, students. They
argue that this would be better than the
status quo, where the CSG president attends
and speaks at every formal regents meeting.
Having spent a considerable amount of
time studying the legal organization of the
University, I can tell you that attempting to
create this position would essentially be a
waste of time and energy. Further, it might
not be possible without changing the state
constitution.
The
University
is
what’s
called
a
constitutional corporation. Basically, that
means that, though created and funded by
the state of Michigan, the state has absolutely
nothing to do with its operations, in the
exact same way it has nothing to do with the
operations of, say, Taco Bell.
But, while Taco Bell and its private
sector
peers
are
established
through
documents called their charters or articles
of
incorporation,
the
University
was
established through the state constitution.
Just as all corporations are bound by
their charters or articles
of
incorporation,
the
University is bound by the
constitutional
provisions
that establish it. These
provisions
specify
the
number of regents and
how they will be selected.
The state constitution
specifically
creates
an
ex-officio,
non-voting
position on the board for the
student council president.
There’s little question that whatever
position can be created on the board for a
new student representative wouldn’t be
a voting one. At the very least, it would
be another ex-officio position. But even
creating another ex-officio position for
the new student representative would be
“undoubtedly questionable” as the Daily
itself admits in its newMICH endorsement.
More
than
that,
it’s
a
question
of
constitutional law.
If this student role is possible at all, it
would require the Regents to amend their
bylaws to create the position. If they refuse,
Shafer and Griggs have little recourse out
of court. Given that the CSG president
already has a powerful voice with the Board
of Regents, the next CSG executive team
would be far better served by using that
voice to advocate for increased resources for
students — which is exactly what Hislop and
Dotson plan to do.
Your Michigan’s candidates understand
University governance, and they know
that pushing for a student on the Board
of Regents won’t be an effective way to
secure change that improves students’ lives.
Instead, they prioritize tangible results and
realistic plans for action.
If you want your CSG to make real changes
on campus, vote for the candidates who know
how to enact it. Vote Hislop and Dotson for
CSG president and vice president.
— Victoria Noble can be reached
at vjnoble@umich.edu.
O
n slow news days last
semester, The Michigan
Daily opinion staff would
sit around the
conference room
table,
scouring
the
Internet
for
anything
interesting
to
talk
about.
Derek (my then
co-editorial page
editor)
would
enthusiastically
break
the
silence:
“Let’s
talk about the
deer cull!”
“Absolutely not,” I mechanically
commanded every time somebody
broached the subject. “We are not
talking about the stupid deer cull.
Keep looking.”
In August 2015, the Ann Arbor
City Council voted 8-1 in support
of
contracting
professional
sharpshooters
to
decrease
the
number of deer in the city over the
next four years. Two successive
resolutions clarifying plans for
the cull passed 10-1. In all of the
resolutions regarding the deer cull,
Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher
Taylor (D) was the only voter to
dissent, believing there was not
enough community consensus to
warrant the cull.
“I
fully
emphasize
and
appreciate the concerns with the
deer-human interaction.” Taylor
said after the initial City Council
vote last August. “At the same time,
there are many members of the
community whose sense of place
in their city will be substantially
affected by shooting deer within
our borders,”
To an extent, I agree with
Taylor:
The
city
government
should not ostracize its citizens
or diminish residents’ opinions
through its resolutions. Hundreds
of residents feel very strongly
about the deer population in their
hometown. They want the city to
seek alternative solutions, and the
city owes its residents a proper
and thorough investigation into all
issues of concern.
But the most vocal opposition to
the cull comes from the Humane
Society of Huron Valley, headed
by Tanya Hilgendorf, and local
animal rights groups such as “Save
the Deer.” Their main argument
against the deer cull is based on
ideas of nonviolence, innovation
and the ethical treatment of all
living things.
“I was always in awe of this
cultural and intellectual mecca,”
one resident said in reference to
the Ann Arbor community during a
November City Council discussion
of the deer cull. “What happened
to seeking creative, non-violent
solutions? Where are the best and
brightest now?”
I
understand
the
resistance
against the deer cull — I really do.
Personally, I am awed by our Earth.
All living things are important
and contribute to the lives humans
lead; we should be respectful and
considerate of all life; we should be
innovative and find solutions that
result in minimal harm.
But the belief that physically
reducing
the
deer
population
perpetuates the most harm is a
privileged
(and
slightly
naive)
perception.
***
Before human settlement, the
wetlands, bogs and semi-forested
areas of lower Michigan offered
deer
herds
protection
from
predators and an abundance of
vegetation to eat. However, by 1870,
deforestation
and
unregulated
hunting led to the extermination
of deer in the southern part
of
Michigan.
Meanwhile,
deforestation in northern Michigan
created an environment for deer
populations to flourish.
Near the end of the 19th century,
the
state
government
began
implementing methods to control
deer populations. In 1915, William
Oates, game commissioner at the
Department of Natural Resources,
estimated that there were only
45,000 deer left in Michigan. Soon
after, Oates proposed the “buck
law” to the state legislature: A
proposal that suggested hunters
should only be allowed to take
down one buck per hunting season.
With the implementation of
strict hunting laws, coinciding
with yet another change in deer
habitat, Michigan’s deer population
rebounded. In the 1930s, field
investigators reported a shortage
of deer food and shelter in the
cedar-swamps they had examined.
In 1937, Ilo Bartlett, Michigan’s
first deer biologist, claimed there
was a combined 1.125 million deer
in the upper and lower peninsulas.
Despite action to reverse the
dramatic increase in deer, the
population reached a peak at 1.5
million in 1949.
Twenty-three
years
later,
Michigan’s deer population fell by 1
million. However, the major factor
in the reduction of deer wasn’t
the more lenient hunting laws, but
rather an increased loss of and
damage to deer habitats.
To remedy these losses, Wildlife
Division
Chief
Merrill
“Pete”
Petoskey and staff biologist John
Byelich developed the Deer Range
Improvement Program. In 1971, part
of the funds garnered from selling
hunting licenses was earmarked for
commercial forestry. Through the
creation of 70,000 acres of forest
openings, conservationists worked to
improve the lives of Michigan deer.
In 1989, the DNR’s efforts — with
the effect of several mild winters
and the public’s feeding of deer
— helped the Michigan deer herd
reach a new high: an estimated
2
million
deer.
Deer-vehicle
accidents and signs of distress
among deer populations increased
once again.
***
Today, the DNR and other deer
conservationist groups aim to
maintain a balanced doe-to-buck
ratio. Deer management is its area
of expertise; it has been trying
to support ecological balance by
monitoring wildlife. While plenty
of mistakes have been made
during the century that Michigan
has been grappling with its deer
population, the DNR and other
conservationists
holistically
understand the lives of deer and
their effects on the environment.
According to the DNR’s website,
“State government has a legal
mandate and moral responsibility
to act, even if contrary to public
will, where the integrity of the
resource is threatened. Thus, the
real challenge of the future of deer
management will be to carefully
sort out the social from biological,
to respond to the will of the
public for the former, and to take
leadership, even if unpopular, for
the latter.”
Humans
have
irrevocably
interfered
with
the
natural
trajectory
and
populations
of
animals. To say otherwise is to
ignore history and the effects it
has on life today. To protect the
lives of 100 deer because they are
cute, fluffy mammals that are
increasingly visible in urban and
suburban lives is hypocritical.
Fences may keep deer out of
our yards, but what about the rest
of the ecosystem? What about the
marbled salamander, Hungerford’s
crawling water beetle, the barn
owl, the smoky shrew or the
dozens of other species currently
on Michigan’s list of Species of
Greatest Conservation Need? Why
are deer — who often have negative
effects on some threatened species
— more important than other living
things? Why are we questioning
conservationists’
sense
of
ecological balance when they have
been managing deer for decades?
In
retrospect,
I
shouldn’t
have shut down all conversation
about the deer cull last semester.
Editorial boards are inherently
supposed to be democratic and my
complete refusal to approach the
subject was slightly dictatorial.
However, despite all of my research
and reading, my stance on the cull
has yet to change.
Maybe it’s because I’m from a
rural area where people rely on
hunting to survive. Maybe it’s
because all of the deer meat has
been used to provide for hungry
families. Maybe it’s because I care
more about the wildflowers than
the deer. Or maybe it’s because I
listened to the deer experts who
have come to a consensus: Far
worse ecological disasters can
happen without deer control.
—Aarica Marsh can be reached
at aaricama@umich.edu.
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, March 24, 2016
E-mail in Chan at tokg@umiCh.Edu
IN CHAN LEE
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
— President Barack Obama, speaking in Cuba about the terrorist attacks at the Brus-
sels airport and Maelbeek metro station in Belgium.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
The whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt
people’s ordinary lives. And one of my most powerful
memories and one of my proudest moments as
president was watching Boston respond after the
marathon. ... That is the kind of resilience and the kind
of strength that we have to continually show in the
face of these terrorists.”
Your Michigan
prioritizes tangible
results and realistic
plans for action.
Humans have
irrevocably interfered
with the natural
trajectory and
populations of animals.
Deer culls aren’t so evil
AARICA
MARSH
Why I voted Your Michigan
VICTORIA
NOBLE
To protect the lives
of 100 deer that are
increasingly visible in
urban and suburban
lives is hypocritical.