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.