A 

month ago, a guy at a 
party turned to me and 
said, “I don’t know your 

name, so I’m going to call you 
sugar tits.” Just three weeks ago, 
a recording of Donald Trump 
lauding his power to grab women 
“by the pussy” surfaced. One in 
four women on college campuses 
are survivors of sexual assault. It 
is frustratingly clear that gender 
inequalities persist in our world.

When I express this frustration 

to women a generation or two 
older than me, they often respond 
by reminding me how much 
more power I have than they did 
at my age. I am usually irritated 
at these responses, uncertain 
how to reconcile my anger with 
appreciation for the privileges I 
have in this generation. An event 
hosted by the LSA Human Rights 
Program last week addressed 
this tension, and emphasized that 
anger can productively coexist 
with appreciation for past success.

The Human Rights Program’s 

distinguished lecture event Oct. 
11 featured Kathryn Sikkink, 
a 
renowned 
professor 
and 

researcher 
of 
human 
rights. 

Sikkink’s presentation highlighted 
a paradoxical characteristic of 
the human rights movement: 
The more we mobilize to combat 
human rights violations, the more 
dismal the situation appears. She 
attributes this feature of the human 
rights movement to three things: 
First, the more data gathered 
about a human rights violation, 
the more prominent that violation 
may seem. Second, as activists and 
organizations succeed in securing 
more human rights, the standard 
of accountability rises. And third, 
a focus on suffering is integral to 
human rights movements because 
dismissal of suffering may appear 
callous and would do little to 
motivate change.

Consequently, 
the 
dialogue 

surrounding 
human 
rights 

movements and institutions is 

often pessimistic. Sikkink argued 
that while negativity may be 
inherent in human rights advocacy, 
unchecked pessimism is corrosive 
to the human rights agenda. 
Quoting Saul Alinsky, Sikkink 
emphasized 
that 
successful 

activism requires three things: 
anger, hope and action. The anger 
portion of this trifecta, Sikkink 
argued, is highlighted in human 
rights activism, while the hope 
portion is often underemphasized. 
Without evidence that our actions 
have been successful, we risk 
losing hope that change is possible.

Her words reminded me of 

my 
grandmother’s 
standard 

response to my frustration with 
gender inequality: “I know you’re 
frustrated, but you are forgetting 
how far we have come.” Just as 
Sikkink’s work seeks to remind 
human rights advocates of their 
success, elder feminists remind 
women of my generation that 
women’s rights movements have 
been successful. Remembering to 
recognize success, however, can 
be challenging.

I 
am 
angry 
that 
women 

hold only 19.4 percent of U.S. 
Congressional seats. Yet in less 
than 100 years, women in this 
country have progressed from 
having 
no 
representation 
in 

government to likely reaching one 
of the most powerful leadership 
positions 
in 
the 
world. 
By 

advocating for women’s suffrage in 
the early 1900s, the International 
Women’s 
Suffrage 
Alliance, 

along with other organizations, 
fought long and hard to free 
women “from the thraldom [sic] 
of the centuries.” The struggle to 
expand political representation 
for women continues today, but 
is made possible by the success of 
past struggles. 

I am angry at the frequency 

with which demeaning comments 
challenge 
women’s 
autonomy. 

I am angry that one-fourth of 
women on college campuses are 
sexually assaulted. I am angry 
that a judge granted Brock Turner 
a lenient sentence based on the 
ironic argument that, “A prison 

sentence would have a severe 
impact on him.”

Sexual violence is a persistent 

problem in many ways, but we are 
making progress in combatting it. 
Sikkink presented a graph which 
displays Sweden as the country 
with the highest occurrence of 
rape in the world. Until recently, 
sexual violence wasn’t a public 
issue. Efforts to monitor the 
prevalence of sexual violence 
weren’t prominent and data wasn’t 
collected. Now, human rights 
movements and women’s rights 
organizations have successfully 
demanded that sexual violence 
become 
a 
public 
issue, 

necessitating 
data 
collection, 

discussion 
and 
advocacy 
for 

change. Documentation of sexual 
violence on college campuses, 
in our country and around the 
world, demonstrates a change in 
public attitudes and priority given 
to the issue. While sexual assault 
statistics rightfully prompt anger, 
they also inspire hope because an 
open discussion has been sparked.

There is much work to be 

done before we can stop being 
angered by underrepresentation of 
women in politics, by demeaning 
comments made by college boys 
and 
presidential 
candidates 

and by the prevalence of sexual 
violence. But just as anger is 
necessary to motivate action, so is 
an understanding of the successes 
of advocacy. As we work toward 
gender equality, let us not only 
focus on frustratingly persistent 
inequalities. We must also remain 
hopeful for future progress by 
remembering the successes of past 
movements and the strength of 
current advocacy.

Next time you find yourself 

responding to a man that replaces 
your name with “sugar tits,” be 
angry enough to voice your anger, 
and be hopeful that comments 
such as these will become less 
frequent as a strong feminist 
movement continues to identify 
and address gender inequalities.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, October 31, 2016

N

umerous 
buildings 

on 
campus 
honor 

presidents who created 

this 
university, 
including 

Henry Tappan, James Angell, 
Harlan 
Hatcher, 
Harold 

Shapiro and James Duderstadt. 
Others commemorate donors 
including 
William 
Cook, 

Horace 
Rackham, 
Stephen 

Ross and Alfred Taubman. 
More than a few are named for 
coaches or athletic directors, 
including Fielding Yost, Fritz 
Crisler, 
Ray 
Fisher 
and 
Bo 

Schemblecher. 
Others 
honor 

faculty members such as Emil 
Lorch and Mortimer Cooley. A 
few buildings bear the names 
of women including Stockwell 
Hall honoring the first woman 
to be admitted, Helen Newberry 
Hall, wife of benefactor John 
Newberry and Penny Stamps, a 
graduate and donor.

A 
student 
or 
professor 

strolling our campus might 
conclude that key figures in 
the development and funding 
of 
this 
institution 
were 

primarily men of European 
origin. That may be the case, 
but there is much more to the 
story. For a century and a half, 
women and people of color 
have earned degrees here and 
played a role in the University 
of Michigan’s growth. And 
many white men associated 
with the University took then-
unpopular stands supporting 
the rights of minorities. As 
the University celebrates both 
diversity and its bicentennial, 
consideration 
might 
be 

given 
to 
commemorating 

women, minorities and those 
who 
promoted 
equitable 

opportunities. 
Prominent 

historical 
markers 
or 

plaques might highlight the 
accomplishments of some of 
the following:

Father Gabriel Richard — A 

key figure in the development 
of Detroit, he joined with Chief 
Justice Augusts Woodward to 
establish the Catholepistimead 
that became this University. 
In 1817, the Chippewa, Ottawa 
and 
Potawatomi 
surrendered 

their land to Michigan territory 
with an agreement that their 
children be educated at the 
schools in Detroit Father Richard 
established. As a result, Michigan 
Native Americans are exempt 
from tuition at this university.

Amanda Sanford — became 

the first woman to graduate 
from the University’s medical 
school in 1871. She furthered 
her medical studies in London 
and Paris and then practiced in 
upstate New York.

Sarah 
Wertman 
— 
She 

graduated from the law school 
in 1871 and became the first 
woman in the United States 
to both earn a legal degree 
and be admitted to the bar in 
Michigan. In that era, many 
states refused to admit women 
to the bar. She was an early 
participant in the Equity Club, 
the first national organization 
of women lawyers and a group 
founded in Ann Arbor.

William Henry Fitzbutler — In 

1872, he became the first African 
American to graduate from the 
Medical School. He practiced 
medicine 
in 
Louisville 
and 

obtained support from Kentucky 
to establish a medical school that 
would admit Blacks. He founded 
and then served as head of the 
National 
Medical 
College 
in 

Louisville, a school that graduated 
150 Black physicians and was 
praised in the Flexner Report.

Moses Fleetwood Walker — 

While earning his law degree 
here, he was the catcher for the 
baseball team in 1882 hitting 
.308. He played professional 
baseball for six years and was 
the last African American to play 
for a minor league baseball team 
until the 1940s.

Branch Rickey — He was 

appointed baseball coach in 1910. 
He earned a law degree in his 
four years in Ann Arbor and then 
became a distinguished baseball 
executive. In the 1940s, baseball 
was the national pastime. Branch 
Rickey successfully overturned 
Jim Crow policies when he 
recruited Jackie Robinson to play 
for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. 
This was among the important 
changes of the post-World War 
II that laid the foundation for the 
Civil Rights Movement.

Jesse Owens — As a member 

of the Ohio State track team, 
Owens set three world records 
— and tied one — within 45 
minutes at Ferry Field on May 
25, 1935. This feat was never 
duplicated. His achievements 
in the Berlin Olympics made 
him the first African-American 
athlete to be seen as a national 
sports hero.

Raoul Wallenberg — This 

Swedish student enrolled in 
the architecture program at 
Michigan in the 1930s. After 

the Germans overran European 
nations, they sought to incarcerate 
Jews. Wallenberg is credited with 
saving thousands of Hungarian 
Jews during the Holocaust.

James Earl Jones — Jones, 

from the Jackson area, came to 
Michigan in the 1950s intending 
to become a physician but 
discovered his talents in the 
performing arts. He enrolled 
in the School of Music and 
went on to became one of the 
nation’s most acclaimed actors, 
winning Tony Awards in 1969 
and 1987 and a Golden Globe 
Award in 1970.

Jessye Norman — She earned a 

master’s degree from the School 
of Music, Theater & Dance in 
1968 and then went to Europe 
to begin her illustrious career 
as an opera singer and recitalist. 
She has, perhaps, performed in 
more operas and in more venues 
than any of her peers and won 
great accolades for her voice, her 
theatrical accomplishments and 
her philanthropy.

Madonna (Louise Ciccone) — 

This artist enrolled as a student 
in the School of Music, Theatre 
& Dance in 1976. She left 
Michigan shortly thereafter to 
begin her extremely successful 
career as a singer, actress, 
composer and businesswoman.

Derek 
Jeter 
— 
This 

Kalamazoo resident enrolled as 
a student in 1992 but then opted 
for a career in professional 
baseball. For 20 years, he was 
the most talented and reliable 
shortstop in the Major Leagues 
while leading the New York 
Yankees to the World Series 
seven times.

Michigan historical markers 

are permanent, highly visible and 
easy to maintain. They provide 
space for an explanation of the 
person and could include a QR 
where 
additional 
information 

would 
be 
available. 
Without 

substantial cost or bureaucratic 
effort, historical markers could 
bring the diverse history of the 
University of Michigan to the 
attention of today’s students, 
staff and visitors — and to those 
who will be walking across this 
campus in forthcoming centuries.

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.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN 

and REGAN DETWILER 

Editorial Page Editors

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.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim

Payton Luokkala

Kit Maher

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Lauren Schandevel

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

E

arlier this month, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection 
Agency admitted it should 

have acted seven months earlier 
in the Flint water crisis, which 
began in April 2014 and is ongoing. 
Lead poisoning and outbreaks 
of bacterial diseases following 
the city’s switch to the Flint 
River as its water source have 
had lasting, irreversible impacts 
to 
human 
health. 
President 

Obama has said, “I know that if 
I was a parent up there, I would 
be beside myself that my kids’ 
health could be at risk.”

Just before Fall Break, I tried to 

defend a creative policy response 
to the Flint water crisis to my Ford 
School of Public Policy classmates. 
The idea is simple: What if the 
government paid residents to move 
to healthier, more economically 
viable 
surrounding 
cities, 
in 

addition to repairing the necessary 
water infrastructure?

Before laying out the arguments 

and evidence underpinning the 
idea, I need to admit I quite clearly 
failed to convince my classmates. 
I pointed to research about 
neighborhood effects, and how the 
government routinely “nudges” 
individuals 
to 
achieve 
better 

outcomes for themselves and their 
communities. My arguments relied 
on the belief that, as individuals, 
we’re “rational economic agents,” 
processing information well and 
assigning prices (i.e., values) to 
the everyday things in our lives. 
To my classmates-turned-critics, 
I failed to consider many of the 
relationships, expectations and 
principles that form a good life.

One complaint with the idea 

was that justice requires much 
more than our government writing 
a check. Water is a basic human 
right according to the U.N. Our 
government has a responsibility to 
meet basic water needs, and failed. 
The government must right the 
wrong on principle; questions of 
cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness 
are irrelevant. Another complaint 
is that such a policy fails to respect 

the rights of individuals, that 
they’d be coerced into moving.

Perhaps the most damning 

rejoinder is that such a policy 
neglects, or fails to account for, 
the value of personal experience, 
communal connections and a 
sense of home. At risk of stating 
the obvious, where we are and 
who we interact with influence 
our happiness and satisfaction. 
The fact that local stakeholders 
have worked tirelessly in Flint 
during the crisis demonstrates 
the importance of these ties 
and interactions to residents. 
Furthermore, 
even 
if 
the 

amount paid to individuals 
reflects this value, can we 
really 
be 
confident 
that 

individuals 
calculate 
their 

own values appropriately when 
taking the cash? We’re all 
guilty of wishful thinking and 
acting irrationally.

My classmates were right 

to be initially skeptical. But 
the 
reasons 
supporting 
the 

rational, cost-benefit-calculating 
economist’s 
policy 
are 
also 

intriguing. Here’s why:

Families 
that 
move 
would 

immediately get what they need 
most: safe, reliable and unlimited 
access to water. Their kids would 
be in better schools immediately, 
without 
the 
uncertainty 
of 

whether their school was safe, 
or whether it might close in the 
coming year. Flint’s schools are still 
failing its students, according to a 
lawsuit filed by the ACLU earlier 
this month. And working parents 
could enter a local economy with 
better job prospects and pay. 
Seminal work by Harvard and 
University of California-Berkeley 
economists have documented that 
Flint, Genesee and Wayne County 
have among the lowest levels 
of economic opportunity and 
mobility in Michigan.

Moving residents could help 

rebuild their trust in institutions, 
which is in short supply among 
Flint residents after years of 
environmental and institutional 
racism. The New York Times 
wrote earlier this month that 
many of the first residents to have 
the pipes to their homes replaced 

continue to use bottled water, 
even after being told the tap was 
OK to use. Economic research 
clearly links higher levels of trust 
in institutions to more human 
development and faster economic 
growth. Paying residents to move 
might help repair this damage.

Economic outcomes could also 

be better in the long run, especially 
for families with young children. 
New evidence from the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban 
Development-sponsored Moving 
to Opportunity experiment, a 
longitudinal 
program 
starting 

in 1994 that resettled residents 
of poor communities in more 
affluent areas, illuminates the 
extent to which location affects 
health and economic outcomes. 
Individuals who moved before 
their 13th birthday, as a result of 
experimental treatment, earned 
31 
percent 
more 
than 
their 

counterparts who did not move. 

It could also be cost effective. 

President Obama is right in that, 
“It’s not enough just to fix the 
water.” The educational, health 
and economic costs of the crisis 
will be enormous. Dispersing 
families 
and 
students 
could 

drive down the educational costs 
associated with lead poisoning and 
lost school hours. And the costs of 
children falling behind in school, 
even for those unaffected by lead 
poisoning, 
likely 
dwarf 
what 

might be spent on infrastructure: 
Students who have fallen behind 
and fail to recover will likely earn 
less on average each year than they 
otherwise would have. This math 
gets scary, quickly.

Questions about how the policy 

could be introduced (e.g., when, 
at what cost, and for whom) raise 
other practical issues, drawbacks 
and ethical concerns. I’d feel 
entirely different about the idea if 
it turned out certain demographic 
groups 
respond 
adversely, 
or 

even less favorably, to moving to 
opportunity. But don’t we owe 
Flint residents ambitious, creative, 
“moonshot”-like policy solutions?

A policy moonshot for Flint

ANTHONY COZART | OP-ED

Faith Cole is an LSA junior.

Bicentennial and diversity

REYNOLDS FARLEY | OP-ED

ANTHONY COZART

FAITH COLE

Anthony Cozart is a graduate 

student in the Ford School 

of Public Policy. 

— Hillary Clinton speaking at a surprise press

 conference in Iowa on Friday, regarding recent FBI 

investigations into Anthony Weiner’s emails.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I have now seen Director Comey’s 

letter to Congress. We are 11 

days out from perhaps the most 

important national election of our 
lifetimes ... The American people 
deserve full and complete facts 

immediately. ”

REYNOLDS FARLEY

Women’s challenge to hope

FAITH COLE | OP-ED

 Reynolds Farley is the Otis Dudley 

Duncan Professor Emeritus in LSA, a 

research scientist at the Population 

Studies Center and currently 

teaches courses about the history 

and future of Detroit in the Ford 

School of Public Policy.

