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. ”