Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 9, 2016

FROM THE DAILY

Together we must repair our wounds
W

hat we feel — and what most of our campus feels — is an 
enormous loss in Hillary Clinton’s defeat in this election. 
With Trump’s victory, racism, misogyny and hate appear 

to have won. People who have stood in staunch opposition to Trump 
are now left disenfranchised with him as our leader, and some are 
fearful for their livelihoods. Now we must move forward, both as a 
nation and a campus community. Nationally, we hope the structure 
of our government places strong enough checks on the president to 
prevent our commander-in-chief from doing anything catastrophic 
for the country or the world. And as students, we must mobilize 
to repair the wounds this intensely polarized election has inflicted 
upon our campus community.

On 
a 
national 
scale, 

American politics have taken 
a 
turn 
toward 
nativism, 

populism and anger. By defying 
conventional 
wisdom 
and 

rejecting 
Clinton’s 
message 

of “Stronger Together,” the 
nation has signaled its strong 
distaste for the status-quo 
politician, messages of hope 
and a more inclusive nation 
where all people’s rights are 
protected. With Republicans 
keeping control of both the 
House 
of 
Representatives 

and the Senate and Trump’s 
presidency, our country will 
be forced to reject progressive 
initiatives many thought were 
the future of federal policy.

We as a nation will have to 

rely on federalism to check 
Trump’s power as president. 
Though Republicans hold a 
majority in the House and 
Senate, over 30 have openly 
opposed Trump. We hope these 
legislators form a coalition with 
like-minded Republicans — as 
well as Democrats — to block 
the passage of more extreme 
policies Trump has proposed, 
like 
banning 
Muslims 
and 

building a wall on the country’s 

southern border. If extremely 
exclusionary policies like these 
do 
pass 
in 
the 
legislature, 

governors at the state level could 
play a crucial role in enforcing 
these types of laws.

What is of utmost importance 

about the next four years is the 
status of the empty seat on the 
Supreme Court of the United 
States. If Trump appoints a 
justice whose views align with 
any degree of closeness to 
Trump’s most extreme policy 
proposals, the best we can hope 
for is that the Senate rejects 
the appointment. However, a 
conservative of any kind on 
the court could seem better 
in the eyes of the Republican-
majority Senate than the even-
numbered court that would 
result from the Senate denying 
approval of a Trump appointee.

Perhaps 
of 
the 
most 

immediate concern, though, is 
how to move forward from this 
election as a campus community 
that has been fractured by 
highly 
polarized 
partisan 

politics. Across the nation and 
among 
students, 
individuals’ 

unique identities, beliefs and 
vulnerabilities 
have 
been 

exploited by the media and pitted 
against one another for political 
gain. 
It 
is 
imperative 
that 

students respect one another’s 
voices as the University works to 
heal these wounds.

Though 
the 
results 
of 

this 
election 
come 
as 
a 

disappointment for many of 
us in the campus community, 
we cannot let defeat stand in 
our way. Trump as president 
will set us back on the progress 
our nation has made toward 
a government that is by the 
people, for the people. But our 
efforts on the grassroots level 
can still have a positive impact. 
To recall President Barack 
Obama’s words at the get-out-
the-vote rally Monday morning, 
the 
most 
important 
office 

in a democracy is that of the 
citizen. It is upon us as citizens 
to be champions of inclusivity 
— be that of race, ethnicity, 
religion, sexual orientation, 
socioeconomic status or even 
political affiliation — and to 
work for the change we want 
to see. Together, even in the 
face of hatred, we can build a 
stronger campus community 
and a stronger America.

ANNIE TURPIN AND JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU AND ANNIE AT ASTURPIN@UMICH.EDU

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

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The real problem with city elections

DAVID DONNANTUONO | OP-ED

L

ast week, The Michigan 
Daily’s Editorial Board 
endorsed a controversial 

City Council ballot initiative to 
extend council members’ terms 
from two years to four years. 
This proposal made its way onto 
Tuesday’s ballot by a 7-4 vote this 
past July and has been a divisive 
topic in Ann Arbor local politics 
ever since, showing a close vote as 
of 2:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. 

Proponents argued that by 

moving council elections to even-
numbered years, there would be 
an increase in voter turnout for 
local elections, as the elections 
would coincide with top-ticket 
races. Those in opposition to the 
proposal believe that it is a self-
serving tactic for City Council 
members because it will decrease 
incumbent 
accountability 
by 

severely reducing the time they 
spend engaging with voters.

Despite each side’s opposing 

views, there is one common 
thread 
in 
each 
argument: 

the need for council member 
accountability. Those in favor 
assert that increasing the volume 
of the electorate in each cycle 
would result in a council that 
is more accountable to a more 
diverse group of constituents, 
whereas 
opponents 
of 
the 

ballot initiative feel that more 
frequent elections and a smaller, 
more invested electorate is a 
more effective way to ensure 
council 
members 
answer 
to 

their constituents. Though both 
arguments have merits, they 
each neglect the real problem: 
the fact that all but two of the 
six local candidates (including 
the mayor) ran unopposed on 
Tuesday’s ballot.

How do we increase voter 

turnout for local elections in a 
way that doesn’t give an unfair 
advantage to incumbent City 
Council members by extending 
City Council terms? The answer 
is fairly simple: Restructure so 
that the general elections are 
contested. If it’s clear that the 
victor in an August primary 
will not face an opponent in 
November, then that election 
should take place in November. If 
such a primary has more than two 

candidates, then the top two vote-
getters move on to a contested 
race in November. Those extra 
three months could be crucial for 
another candidate to gain support 
and mount a real challenge to 
an incumbent. Such a revision 
would ensure contested general 
elections 
without 
eliminating 

the possibility of a Republican 
or Independent running for City 
Council or mayor.

Such an approach is not 

without precedent. California, 
as an exceedingly Democratic 
state, sought to put an end to 
elections for state legislative and 
U.S. congressional offices being 
decided in primaries. In January 
2011, 
California 
implemented 

the Top Two Candidates Open 
Primary Act. This law altered 
primaries so that all prospective 
candidates — regardless of party 
affiliation — share one ballot, and 
the two candidates who receive 
the most votes move on to the 
general election.

Though California’s law does 

not apply to local office and 
puts Republicans, Independents 
and Democrats on the same 
primary ticket, differing from 
my proposed solution, it echoes 
the same sentiment: Uncontested 
general elections are a detriment 
to the democratic process. Thus, 
if it is greater accountability 
that seven of our City Council 
members demand, then let’s 
demand a real answer, because 
ensuring greater turnout in an 
uncontested election is not one.

Given the fact that Ann Arbor 

is a predominantly Democratic 
city, it is no shock that Republican 
candidates have difficulty gaining 
traction in local elections. With 
this 
absence 
of 
Republican 

challengers, a majority of the 
council seats in any given election 
cycle are determined in the 
August primaries, where many 
incumbent council members face 
other 
Democratic 
candidates. 

The only incumbent facing an 
opponent on Tuesday was Chuck 
Warpehoski (D), who defeated 
David Silkworth (I). 

If 
proponents 
of 
a 
term 

extension are actually concerned 
about 
greater 
turnout 
for 

local elections, their proposal 
doesn’t show it. Though it is 
true that turnout is higher in 
even-numbered years, the fact 
remains that there is no real 
competition 
come 
November. 

Because incumbents are running 
unopposed in the general election, 
doubling their terms would do 
less to increase accountability 
and more to reduce the frequency 
of council members interacting 
with and being evaluated by their 
constituents.

In the August primary, voter 

turnout in Ann Arbor stood at 
a dismal 15.5 percent and every 
incumbent 
candidate 
who 

was in a contested race came 
out victorious. Though their 
victories could be partially 
attributed to a solid track 
record as council members, it 
could also be a product of their 
experience and the resources at 
their disposal (as incumbents) 
to 
galvanize 
the 
relatively 

small number of votes required 
to win a primary. In this case, 
for all but one council member, 
a victory in August meant a 
victory in November.

Despite 
its 
shortcomings, 

this misguided ballot proposal 
did achieve one critical feat: It 
illuminated the rarely discussed 
problem of underrepresentation 
in local elections. However, 
rather than seeking a viable 
solution 
to 
this 
issue, 
the 

City Council leveraged it as 
a guise to further entrench 
themselves in their seats. If 
greater accountability is truly 
what our council desires, a term 
extension is senseless. A four-
year term would only diminish 
the 
ability 
of 
Ann 
Arbor 

residents to assess our local 
policymakers 
while 
limiting 

the ability of outside candidates 
to challenge incumbents. In 
contrast, reforming Ann Arbor’s 
local primaries would ensure 
a contested general election, 
empower non-incumbents and 
make our City Council members 
accountable to a larger group of 
constituents.

David Donnantuono is an 

LSA junior.

ARIANA SULEJMAN | OP-ED
Muslim women and the patriarchy

I

slamophobia 
is 
a 
huge 

problem in the West in this 
day and age. An argument 

often cited against Islam is that 
it calls for the oppression of 
women, but this is simply untrue. 
The patriarchal system we see 
today was set forth culturally, 
under the guise of religion, 
to the point that even a vast 
number of women believe their 
subordinance is a religious truth. 
Empowering Muslim women is 
essential to combatting sexism 
within Islamic countries. 

On Oct. 26, Shirin Ebadi, 

Iranian human rights activist 
and Nobel Peace Prize winner, 
visited 
the 
University 
of 

Michigan and spoke about 
the role of gender and culture 
in 
Islam. 
She 
explained 

that since the 1979 Iranian 
Revolution, women have been 
discriminated against worse 
than ever before. For example, 
in Iranian court, the testimony 
of two women is equivalent to 
the testimony of one man. In the 
treatment of homosexuality, 
women are punished far less 
severely than men because 
“(they) do not really have a 
dignity and reputation to lose.”

Of 
course, 
levels 
of 

discrimination between Islamic 
countries vary, but Iran is not 
alone 
in 
propogating 
such 

practices. 
In 
2006, 
Ratna 

Sarumpaet, 
a 
renowned 

playwright 
in 
Indonesia, 

very 
succinctly 
addressed 

the underlying problem here 
when speaking out against a 
controversial anti-pornography 
bill. She stated, “Religion these 
days has become trapped into 
being a tool for power.”

So, how exactly is religion 

being used to justify oppression? 
Ebadi delves into this question 
during 
her 
discussion. 
She 

breaks down many of the parts 
of the Quran that today are 
considered sexist, but had a 
place in their time. For example, 
the Quran states that a woman is 
only entitled to half the amount 

of wealth of a man. This made 
sense because, at the time, men 
were the people who created 
all wealth. But this is no longer 
the case: Women, too, do their 
part in the workforce, and 
because the social conditions 
have changed, so too should the 
laws of Islamic countries. Ebadi 
also cites slavery as an example: 
Though slavery is conditionally 
permitted in the Quran, all 
Islamic countries have since 
prohibited it. If slavery has 
become unacceptable with time 
due to social progress, why 
aren’t the laws against women 
being changed?

How then will the situation 

of women ever improve in 
places like Iran? Just like work 
that must be done in feminist 
movements in the west, women 
in Islamic countries need to first 
recognize that they are being 
treated unjustly and then stand 
up and fight for the rights they 
deserve. Of course, this does not 
excuse men of responsibility. 
They, too, should stand in 
solidarity for the rights of the 
women in their societies. But I 
specifically suggest that women 
not be passive when it comes 
to their own fates. They should 
play the leading role in pushing 
for change and enhancing their 
lives. After all, it was less than 
100 years ago that women gained 
the right to vote in the United 
States. We as a country have 

come a long way because women 
have fought for progress.

This is not to say that similar 

processes have not already begun 
in the Islamic world. A group 
called Musawah, launched in 
2009, works to promote gender 
equality without compromising 
Islamic tradition. Many Islamic 
countries 
are 
participants. 

To combat sexism, this group 
creates educational materials 
that reveal that Islam and 
equality are not incompatible. A 
prominent member of the group, 
Zainah Anwar, states that many 
Muslim women spend their 
entire lives believing that their 
oppression is justified by Islamic 
teachings 
and 
that 
“when 

they are exposed to this new 
knowledge, they feel duped.” 
Musawah represents a route 
for change. And though we are 
on the other side of the globe, 
we as Americans can do our 
part, too. We can both work to 
raise awareness of the existing 
inequalities in these countries 
and also to support groups like 
Musawah, which are fighting 
for change within these Islamic 
countries. 
As 
history 
has 

shown, progress will occur as 
more and more women become 
enlightened and impassioned to 
their disposition in society, and 
the international community 
should certainly support these 
women in the process.

It is often said that history 

repeats 
itself, 
or 
perhaps, 

comes in waves. The wave of 
feminism hit the west first, and 
now, perhaps, it is time for a 
new wave. Olympe de Gouges, 
a French feminist of the 18th 
century, may have been alive 
long ago, but her words written 
in 1791 in the “Declaration of 
the Rights of Woman” still 
have great relevance to the 
women suffering discrimination 
in 
Islamic 
countries 
today: 

“Woman, wake up; the tocsin of 
reason is being heard throughout 
the whole universe; discover 
your rights.”

Ariana Sulejman is an LSA junior.

ARIANA SULEJMAN

As history has 
shown, progress 

will occur as 

more and more 
women become 
enlightened and 
impassioned to 
their disposition.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY 

ABOUT THIS U-TURN?

Make your voice heard. Respond to our articles in a letter to 
the editor or share your own thoughts in an op-ed. Letters 
should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 
650 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name, year and 
University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

