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.

”

