T
here is nothing like a
fall afternoon at the Big
House. A football game,
a great band, discerning fans
and lots of excitement. About
110,168 fans on a regular basis, not
counting the vast TV audiences,
couldn’t be wrong.
But there is another storyline
here. College football has become
much bigger than the universities
it actually purports to represent.
Michigan football is branded on
the sweats and tees and mugs of
every Wal-Mart in the country.
People recognize “Hail to the
Victors” when they hear it, and
if they watch national sports,
they’ll recognize the distinctive
helmets. Michigan alumni clubs
propose “game-watching” events
in a sports bar setting as their
major activity. Young recruits
squint as spotlights feature their
signing day on national broadcasts.
And most notably, the Michigan
coach has become what is needed
today to get your brand out
there in cyberspace — headline-
making notoriety with nation-
wide football camps and tweets
that bring attention to his star
status. He is remunerated seven
times more than his ostensible
supervisor, the president of the
University of Michigan.
No one should be naive. Making
money is what makes major
college football today. As media
look for more events to broadcast
and pushes colleges to grasp the
golden ring, money becomes ever
more important. Go to a game
and you will see it all — replete
with long, scheduled delays on
the field so that TV can get in
ads. Tickets are legally scalped
online while the little guy trying
to make $20 on State Street is
prohibited from doing so. Food
sales are huge because you can’t
bring your own popcorn in with
you. The band, likely for the media,
is now amplified — that is to say,
our band, not the visiting team’s.
It is only a matter of time before
the University permits more overt
advertising on scoreboards and
even in the naming of the stadium.
How about the Ajax Widget
Michigan Stadium?
This is our free-market system,
but whether many universities can
perpetuate this business model
in the future is anyone’s guess.
Let’s make some changes so that
football can flourish.
First, since college football
is big-time entertainment, pay
the actors. Though he expresses
his gratitude for his education
and opportunities, as Jake Butt
said in a press interview at the
end of March, his scholarship is
hardly enough to cover his rent,
let alone any other expenses. And
only a small elite later translate
their athletic prowess into a
paycheck at the professional
level. Some of us might be
surprised at how much these
young people sacrifice, including
their
university
education,
because their focus on a long
season, and not on their studies,
makes academic achievement an
unattainable goal. When you see
the heroic plays they make and
the injuries they sustain, they
need recompense. It would be the
honorable thing to do.
If players wished to matriculate
at the University, they could
compete on an equal basis with
the kids who populate the student
section at the games. And by the
way, a few years ago it was the
students, not anyone else, who
protested when an obviously
injured player was not immediately
pulled out of the game, and when
the cost of their attending a game
reached new heights. All that
for someone else’s pocket, to the
exclusion of students and players.
Second, create the Michigan
Football Corporation. That could
readily accept funds from alumni,
unabashedly sell its brand and
raise the money needed to keep
it all going. A corporation, most
simply, could be located in Ann
Arbor and lease and maintain the
stadium and its blandishments.
The corporation could apply its
rents and royalties to bringing
more
deserving
cash-short
students t =o the University
campus. The team could serve
as a farm team, as in baseball, or
in European soccer, training and
selecting the next generation of
stars for the big time.
Such a model would avoid the
unnecessary conflicts inherent
in marrying a huge business to
a university. It would eliminate
the seeming contradictions of
educating young people versus
running a quality business. It
would insulate the University
from the vagaries of the sports
market,
which
increasingly
relies on huge budgets. If you’ve
been to a bowl game or a regular
season match at a number of
our less football-focused sister
universities, you’ll note that the
market for watching games is
nearing its saturation point.
The University of Michigan is
a great university and its maize-
and-blue Wolverines are world
famous. Let’s provide them the
space to grow.
Transgender rights are a
nationwide issue, as human
dignity should not be based on
where a person happens to live.
Redacting these guidelines
put in place by the Obama
administration affects people
regardless
of
geographic
location. Despite the promises
of President Trump and Betsy
DeVos to protect the LGBTQ
community,
rescinding
the
“Dear Colleague” letter makes
clear
the
administration’s
disregard for the rights of
the
LGBTQ
community.
Furthermore,
this
action
once
again
perpetuates
false
and
harmful
notions
that
transgender
people
are
predators.
The
daily
experiences of discrimination
faced by transgender people,
including — but definitely not
limited to — access to public
restrooms, are difficult enough
without a government that fails
to validate their humanity.
Given
that
the
federal
government is rolling back
on Obama-era policies, states
must take action. States must
create legislation that works
especially to protect the rights
of K-12 students and people
in the workforce, who will
likely feel the brunt of gender
discrimination
more
than
students on (usually more
liberal)
college
campuses.
Michigan currently does not
have statewide laws, housing
policies, employment policies
or anti-bullying protections
in schools with children of
all grade levels that explicitly
prevent
discrimination
based on sexual orientation
or
gender
identity.
Additionally, Michigan has
no
laws
facilitating
legal
gender
change
on
official
identification
documents.
In contrast, states such as
California
and
Minnesota
support and uphold these
policies and more. Michigan
state government needs to
do more to stand up for the
civil rights of transgender
people to show fundamental
compassion and dignity.
Nonetheless,
as
federal
policies
continue
to
cut
down on previous progress
toward
equality
for
all
people, and Michigan state
policies are severely lacking
in protections, universities
across
the
country
are
gradually
making
strides
to foster a more inclusive
community. The University
must
continue
to
make
strides
along
with
them.
In the United States, there
are 1,036 universities with
nondiscrimination
policies
that include gender identity
and
expression.
Moreover,
there are 212 colleges and
universities,
including
the
University of Michigan, that
have gender-inclusive housing
for
people
of
all
gender
identities
and
expressions.
Granted, East Quad Residence
Hall
is
the
only
official
on-campus
gender-inclusive
dorm
at
the
University.
Additionally,
there
are
very
few
gender-inclusive
bathrooms
on
campus.
Therefore,
the
University
must continue to work toward
ensuring equal access to all
spaces on campus regardless
of gender identity. However,
it is great to see that the
University is taking important
steps many other universities
in the United States have not.
Though we recognize that
this is not a perfect solution,
and there are certainly ways
to
improve
and
increase
resources
for
transgender
students, these are important
steps in the right direction.
These are not the only
two cases that show the
University’s initiative for a
more inclusive community.
Recently,
the
University
began to allow students to
indicate
their
preferred
pronouns on course rosters
so faculty and staff know how
students identify regardless
of the sex on their application.
This
made
the
University
one of seven colleges and
universities in the United
States that does this. While it
is important to acknowledge
more must be done to improve
the campus culture and create
lasting,
effective
policies,
we commend the University
for
taking
crucial
strides
such as these to make the
environment inclusive for all
students. We ask it continues
to take steps to better protect
the rights of all students.
While
the
Trump
administration
may
have
backtracked
on
rights
for
transgender
people
by
reversing the guidance from
“Dear
Colleague”
of
the
Obama
administration,
it
should not dictate how we
handle this issue, either at
the University level or at
the state level. Transgender
rights should be a topic of
federal concern, but given
today’s climate, it is the job
of the state and local actors
such as the University to
make protecting these rights
a priority.
T
he nomination of Judge
Neil
Gorsuch
to
the
Supreme
Court
has
displayed how partisan politics
influence
political
strategies.
Senate
Democrats
have
promised to obstruct
Gorsuch, who most
likely will not reach
the 60-vote margin
needed to overcome
a
filibuster.
That
strategy has forced
Senate Republicans
to
threaten
the
nuclear
option,
amending long-standing Senate
rules
requiring
a
60-vote
supermajority to a 51-vote simple
majority
when
appointing
Supreme Court nominees.
Will
Senate
Democrats
succeed
in
filibustering
the
confirmation of President Donald
Trump’s Supreme Court justice
nominee, Neil Gorsuch? Will the
Republicans change the rules
and invoke the nuclear option? It
turns out that how the Democrats
feel about these two options
depends on who is in power and
who stands to be disadvantaged
by the decisions.
On “Meet the Press” this past
weekend,
outspoken
Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D–N.Y.) argued that President
Trump should gather with Senate
Democrats
and
Republicans
to “try to come up with a
mainstream nominee.” Schumer
asserted that the rules should
not be changed by Republicans
in order to obtain cloture (the
limitation of legislative debate by
calling for a vote). Furthermore,
he is critical of invocation of the
so-called nuclear option.
It appears, however, as if
Schumer has a very short memory
regarding “rule changes.” His
former colleague, then-Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D–Nev.), invoked the nuclear
option in 2013 — so it would take
only a bare majority of senators
to confirm all nominees except
Supreme Court picks. Angered
by Reid’s partisan and damaging
ploy, the Republicans warned that
the Democrats would potentially
suffer the consequences of the
rules change were the Senate
majority ever to flip.
Well, that day has arrived.
As a New York state resident
and politically curious citizen, I
would greatly benefit from Mr.
Schumer
explaining
exactly
what the qualifications are for a
“mainstream nominee.” Anyone
who took the time to carefully
watch the confirmation hearings,
listen to Gorsuch’s responses and
appreciate his perspective about
the role of the judiciary would
have learned that he
believes that judges do
not make laws or policy.
Equally as important,
he understands that
judges do not factor
their personal opinions
or beliefs into their
decisions. Rather, they
uphold precedent and
follow the law.
A profound respect
and
admiration
for
impartiality
sounds
pretty
mainstream to me. In fact, when
politics are taken out of the
discussion, I believe Gorsuch’s
qualifications,
record
and
reputation are beyond reproach.
However, those trying to make
logical sense of this objection are
operating under the assumption
that Schumer is actually open
to consensus-building. The sad
reality is that he is not.
Recall
that
in
January,
Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel
Maddow that it was difficult for
him to imagine any “nominee
that
Donald
Trump
would
choose that would get Republican
support that we could support.”
His promise to do his best at
keeping the seat vacant for the
entirety of Trump’s presidency
is not only hypocritical but also
undemocratic.
Let’s not be hoodwinked by
Schumer — a senator whose
obstructionism
is
no
more
than a reaction to a lingering
aftertaste of Mitch McConnell
refusing to consider Obama’s
nomination of Merrick Garland
after Antonin Scalia’s passing.
On “Meet the Press,” McConnell
referred to the “Biden Rule” as
justification — acknowledging
that neither side would have
expected any different a decision
had the shoe been on the other
foot. It is crucial to recall that
in 1992 when George H.W. Bush
was president and Biden was
chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Biden established
that Supreme Court vacancies
should not be filled in the midst
of a presidential election.
In deference to the fact that
Trump won the election, and
has offered his nominee for
consideration, Mitch McConnell
has argued, “The Senate should
respect the result of the election
and treat this newly elected
president’s nominee in the same
way the nominees of other newly
elected presidents have been
treated.” He also has pointed
out two examples in which
up-or-down votes were given
under Democratic presidents:
Ginsburg and Breyer under
Clinton and Sotomayor and
Kagan under Obama.
Certainly,
recent
history
provides precedent for an up-or-
down vote and no filibuster.
Some
Democrats,
such
as
Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.),
have recognized that the left’s
intransigence
threatens
the
institution of the Senate as
we know it. Yet, despite this
sensibility,
other
Democrats
appear
to
be
consistently
inconsistent. Schumer feels quite
entitled to filibuster Gorsuch’s
confirmation, effectively allowing
a minority vote of 41 to prevent
cloture — hardly an up-or-down
vote when a minority can block
a confirmation. And Schumer
argues that invoking the nuclear
option would be wrong today,
even though Harry Reid felt it was
warranted in 2013.
As to the justification for a
filibuster and the imperative
for changing the rules (i.e.,
invoking the nuclear option)
Schumer’s
own
Senate
colleague Elizabeth Warren felt
very differently than Schumer
about both in 2013. From a floor
speech on Nov. 13, 2013, she
criticized filibusters and called
for a rules change: “We need
to call out these filibusters for
what they are — naked attempts
to nullify the results of the last
presidential election … we have
a responsibility to protect and
defend our democracy, and
that includes protecting the
neutrality of our courts and
preserving the constitutional
power
of
the
president
to
nominate
highly
qualified
people to court vacancies.”
Sens. Schumer and Warren
must realize that “biting off
their nose to spite their face”
accomplishes nothing productive.
If the nuclear option takes place,
the Senate may very well approve
even more conservative judges
during Trump’s administration
with only a majority requirement.
One thing is for certain: The
Republicans are fully aware that
the filibuster is merely a naked
attempt to nullify the results of
the last presidential election.
And the aftertaste of the nuclear
option will be worse than not
considering Merrick Garland.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, April 6, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
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
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Ibrahim Ijaz
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Consistently inconsistent
NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN
Nicholas Tomaino can be reached at
ntomaino@umich.edu.
Wolverine football should take the lead
DOUGLAS MCELHANEY | OP-ED
NICHOLAS
TOMAINO
Douglas McElhaney is an LSA
alumnus in the class of 1968 and the
American Ambassador to Bosnia and
Herzegovina from 2004 to 2007.
FROM THE DAILY
Prioritize transgender rights
A
t the end of February, the Trump administration revoked the
Obama-era “Dear Colleague” letter, which extended Title IX
protections against sex discrimination in schools to protect
gender identity and allow transgender students to use the bathrooms
that corresponded with their gender identities. By backtracking on this
policy, the federal administration has significantly weakened schools’
incentives to allow students to use restrooms that correspond to the
gender they identify with. Shortly after, the University of Michigan’s
Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs passed a resolution
that reaffirmed the right for people on campus to use the restrooms that
correspond with their gender identities. The Michigan Daily’s Editorial
Board commends the University for continuing to uphold previous
guidelines protecting students. While we believe that transgender rights
should be protected at a federal level, the state and other local actors —
such as the University — have a duty to enforce these recommendations
when the current federal administration will not.
—PepsiCo’s apology issued from its Twitter account regarding a
recently released — and then removed — advertisement. The ad
was met with harsh criticism for portraying protesting and the
fight for civil rights as trendy, lighthearted and commodifiable.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
Clearly we missed the mark, and
we apologize. We did not intend to
make light of any serious issue.
”