T
his month a year ago,
Donald
Trump
was
sworn in as President
of these United States, and
many of us were bracing for
the worst. It seemed too simple
— 30 seconds with his hand on
a Bible, rain drizzling down on
the CNN camera — for such a
momentous event. I’d spent
the last three months dreading
that
moment,
reevaluating
how great a sin it had been for
President Barack Obama to be
such a mild liberal. And then,
all at once, it was over.
I think the biggest surprise
is how accommodating our
society and political structure
have been for someone that
seems so out of the ordinary.
Every scandal, for me, has this
moment where I think, “this
is it, this is the one that’s just
too much.” Trump seems to
weather each media storm with
ease, though, and so it seems
that outrage alone isn’t enough
to actually affect anything.
We know that, if nothing
else, people opposed to Trump
only have to wait him out. It’s
still
uncertain
whether
or
not we’ll see him after 2020,
but it’s impossible that we’ll
see him after 2024. President
George W. Bush had some
ridiculous moments, but after
eight sanitizing years of the
Obama
administration
we
have largely forgotten these
moments — and Bush was
much more destructive than
Trump has been with regard to
civilian life.
In spite of all of the energy
of #resist, we are largely
resigned to the next three
years and everything they
might bring. Just over a third
of the country is fully on
board with Trump; the rest
is waiting with a patience
that is uniquely, admirably,
American: remembering that
Trump is only temporary.
Organizers
and
political
activists know this more than
anyone else, especially now
that many are questioning
whether
the
indignant
backlash of late 2016 and early
2017 has started to fade. It’s
nearly impossible to force a
Republican-led
government
to suffer the electoral damage
that impeachment or another
drastic action would cause —
it would alienate a significant
portion of their base, embolden
liberals
and
would
hurt
the
party’s
overall
brand.
Grassroots alternatives suffer
from
their
own
problems;
people don’t actually want to
march for four years, even if
they’re angry.
Even
given
the
above
problems,
I
don’t
know
whether or not waiting until
the 2018 and 2020 elections is
an acceptable strategy either.
On one hand, there are millions
of people who could be hurt
by the policies implemented
during Trump’s presidency. On
the other hand, Trump is just a
figurehead. It’s easy to forget
that the Senate and House of
Representatives, along with
the Supreme Court, also have
a Republican majority when
the man at the head of the
party is making so much noise
about himself.
Our
situation
isn’t
the
product
of
one
choice
—
Hillary
Clinton
or
Trump
or protest vote — it’s the
result
of
numerous
other
small decisions. Low turnout
for
state-level
elections
means that 67 of 99 of state
legislatures
are
Republican
controlled. Low turnout in
midterm elections may have
influenced
the
resulting
Republican majority in the
House of Representatives in
2010 and the Senate in 2014.
There were chances to take
back these institutions; there
were chances to hobble a
Trump presidency the way
Republicans
had
hobbled
Obama’s second term.
Liberals didn’t manage it,
though.
Midterm
elections
don’t get the media attention
or national scrutiny the way
presidential
elections
do,
but the legislative balance of
power depends on them. The
use of a president, however
accomplished or charismatic,
is limited significantly when —
as with Obama for the majority
of his years — they have no
legislative power behind them.
Politics has to be more than
a “sport for nerds,” and if we
intend to win we have to focus
on turnout, not the number of
nominal partisans in one area
or another. When trying to stop
someone accused of sexual
misconduct, hammering home
the fact that he’s assaulted
a number of teenage girls
and women isn’t going to flip
his voters (it may, in fact,
strengthen
their
resolve).
Bringing more of the people
who already oppose him, or
who support his opponent, to
the polls is more effective than
trying to convert people who
are already resistant to the
Democratic party’s ideas.
In one year, the first 2020
candidates will be declaring
their candidacy for the position
of president. In two years, we’ll
have seen a number of debates,
and will be coming up on the
primary
elections
(perhaps
in both parties). Trump, as he
has this last year, will most
likely have made an impossible
number of gaffes and horrible
statements during this time.
In
three
years,
we’ll
have
another
presidential
election — and a House of
Representatives
election
that
will
determine
legislative
redistricting
after the census. It’s critical,
especially
after
Trump’s
surprise
victory,
that
we
remember the many people
who are already decided on
progressive ideals, but still
need to be reminded to vote
in support of them. Make
sure, if you’re already weary
of this president and his
politics, that you show up to
cast a ballot.
O
ur campus, like many
college campuses across
the nation, has been
rocked by a number of upsetting
behaviors
in
the
preceding
months. Look at any news outlet
and you will quickly see that
binge drinking and drug use are
harming college students both on
and off campus. Scroll through
your Facebook feed, and with the
emergence of campaigns such
as #MeToo, you will realize that
some of your most idolized heroes,
and perhaps even closest friends,
have suffered sexual harassment
and assault.
Individuals and administrators
at the University of Michigan
should be taking action to do
whatever they can to limit any
activity in which students may
harm themselves or others. This is
indisputable. What I do not agree
with, though, is the decision on
many college campuses, including
our own, to place disproportionate
blame on the institution of Greek
life and its members.
There is a stigma that members
of Greek life are more likely to
drink alcohol at levels that may
endanger themselves and others,
that
members
of
fraternities
commit sexual assault at higher
rates than their non-affiliated
peers. While these statements
may be an exaggeration of reality,
I don’t dispute the truth that is at
their core. Rather, I dispute that
these issues stem from Greek life
and its culture, and the dissolution
of this institution would result in
the removal of these problems.
This piece is not a defense of
Greek life, but rather a reminder
that with the end goal of creating
a safe and educated student
body, perhaps we are looking for
solutions in the wrong places.
From my personal experience
as an active member of Greek life
on our campus, the demographic
that typically feeds into Greek life
is that of a more social and perhaps
more risk-inclined variety. The
removal of Greek life would not
stop students from participating in
unsafe actions, but rather it would
simply scatter and disorganize
these students who are more
inclined to engage in this type of
behavior. I contend Greek life is
highly correlated with, but isn’t
the sole cause of, the culture and
behavior universities are trying
to expel from college campuses.
Binge drinking and sexual assault
are important issues that affect
our entire generation, and they
are issues an organized Greek life
system may actually be able to
help control.
The University doesn’t have
the authority to enter a student’s
off-campus, private residence and
investigate
behavior
occurring
within those walls. The University
cannot
monitor
the
kind
of
alcoholic drinks that might be
served at a party, nor can it ensure
support is at the party in case
something does go wrong. Sure,
police can be called to a house party,
and students may be sanctioned
by the school if they are found
breaking laws, but this influence
pales in comparison to the power
University administrators have
over Greek life today. The Social
Responsibility
Committee
and
Greek Activities Review Panel
are two student-led initiatives at
the University that work to create
a
safer
campus
environment
through their ability to both create
and enforce restrictions. The
ban of hard alcohol at fraternity
houses, the requirement of sober
individuals to be available to
help distressed students and the
member-education requirements
surrounding
drinking
and
sexual assault are examples of
policies that could not exist in the
absence of organized, complying
organizations
like
Greek
life.
The system we have today is by
no means perfect, but at least it
currently portrays a framework
for which future programs can be
instated.
During my time as a member of
a fraternity here at the University,
I have been exposed to numerous
experiences
that
helped
me
develop the moral compass to
which I adhere today. Freshman
year, the new members of my
fraternity and I participated in
a
candid
conversation
about
sex with an on-campus group,
exposing us to concepts and
perspectives about consent that I
had never previously considered.
Had we not been obligated to
attend this session by the Office
of Greek Life, I might not have
taken the initiative to explore
these ideas myself. Mandatory
alcohol education classes, mixed
with risk-management seminars
led by older members, taught me
when to put down my pride and
pick up the phone to call for help
if I recognized somebody to be
in danger. While all freshmen
are required to attend seminars
regarding alcohol, drugs and
sexual activity, the current Greek
life system has the opportunity to
require continued education on
these topics.
Fraternity
and
sorority
members
should
accept
responsibility for any dangerous
behavior that occurs within
the walls of their houses or
committed anywhere by their
members.
But
rather
than
pointing
fingers
and
using
Greek life as a scapegoat to
prove how the University is
taking actions to make our
campus safer, the University
should partner further with
the Greek life community. The
existing systems in place give
our school the ability to help
teach its students right from
wrong, and how they can have
a good time in a safe, controlled
environment, something I fear
they may lose if they maintain
their current stance.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 5, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
MATT FRIEND | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Trump, two years later
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
Greek life, the solution to its own problem?
DANIELLE COLBURN | COLUMN
Women are not our savior
Matt Friend can be reached at
mjfri@umich.edu.
CARLY BEHRENDT | CONTACT CARLY AT CARBEHR@UMICH.EDU
WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM?
Come to The Michigan Daily’s mass meetings!
Mass meetings will be located in the newsroom at 420
Maynard on Jan. 11, 16 and 17 at 7 p.m. Hope to see you there!
W
omen won’t save
the world. Maybe
a
woman
will.
Maybe the efforts of many
women will. But when we
look at “women” as a singular
entity, we ignore all of the
many qualified, hardworking
women who are individuals
making up this collective.
We ignore the women who
have been working to make
change for years, who are
people
with
stories,
not
faceless
members
of
an
underrepresented group.
It
has
become
harder
and harder to ignore the
foundational problems of the
culture we live in, especially
in the recent climate. I’ve
heard
some
interesting
solutions
posed,
where
people have been saying, “We
should just let the women
take over.” As in, “We’ve
royally screwed it up, maybe
someone else could come
clean this up.” I’ve seen this
in response especially to the
#MeToo
movement,
when
it was revealed that many
powerful and once-respected
men wielded their power over
others to harass, assault and
silence their victims.
This idea that women are
the answer, even when shared
as a joke, is problematic
because it sheds light on a
very real mindset. It seems to
suggest that women are better
for the job just as a default.
Not because of qualifications,
effort
or
skill,
but
just
because men apparently can’t
be trusted in that position.
It ignores the women who
have worked hard, who have
faced discrimination based
on one or many identities
and have been systematically
shut out of positions of power.
Women deserve to be in
power not simply as backups
to men who have shown
themselves unworthy of the
power they’ve been given, but
because they have worked for
it tirelessly.
Last year, I took an English
class on medieval women
with the fantastic Dr. Gina
Brandolino,
an
English
lecturer at the University of
Michigan. We talked about
the ways in which medieval
literature categorized women
and put them in one of two
places: the gutter or the
pedestal. That is to say, the
literature would often shame
women by making them less
than their male counterparts,
or it would revere them by
exalting women and their
purity.
Ultimately,
the
literature would treat women
as if they transcended human
behavior. Women were things
to be degraded or protected,
not agents with the ability
to
act.
Revering
women
seems better than shaming
them, maybe, but both serve
to
generalize
women
and
ignore the individual, and
result in the same thing: the
removal of women from the
human sphere until they are
acted upon, not capable of
action themselves. We only
studied this categorization
in medieval texts, but I say it
happens today as well, in the
real world.
When we hold women as
a group applicable to some
kind of higher, unattainable
standard, it leaves no room
for
natural,
inevitable
mistakes. It condemns women
for human error. It expects
some kind of salvation to
come without calling for a
change in the culture that
created the problems women
are somehow expected to fix.
It’s not the job of women — or
any victim, from any group —
to fix a broken system. The
system has to be changed
by those individuals most
ingrained in it by stepping up
and calling for consequences.
There’s
also
a
problem
with thinking women are the
only group being wronged,
the only silenced people who
deserve to have a voice. It’s
not just women who have
been preyed upon by those
abusing their power. It’s not
just women who have been
shut out of corporate offices,
writing rooms, center stage.
What we should be looking
for is to put the best people
in positions of power — that
means people of any identity.
That means any individual
who works hard, who proves
themselves worthy of the
position, who is willing to
take a stand against a system
that they might benefit from,
even to their own detriment.
It also means acknowledging
that it’s far harder for women
to get there, especially women
of color, especially women
in the LGBTQ community,
especially women with any
number
of
intersecting
identities who bring their
own experiences.
And so, women deserve to
be in power. But not just now,
not just suddenly after these
flaws in the system have
been exposed. For as long as
there has been a system, as
long as there have been roles
with power, there have been
women who deserved to hold
them. Not women as a group,
but individual women, whose
singular
accomplishments
matter. This should not be
happening because of a hope
for a magic fix, but because
eyes are finally opening to
mistakes that are decades —
centuries, even — old.
The
identity
“women”
doesn’t signify a cleaning
crew
coming
in
to
deal
with a mess that is years in
the making. There are real
solutions to the problems
we’re seeing; those who abuse
their power should be called
out and held accountable so
everyone knows there are
consequences for exploiting
others. There are ways to
make spaces safe so incoming
women
aren’t
forced
to
devote
half
their
minds
to warding off unwanted
advances.
Imagine
the
progress that will be made
when a working woman can
give all of her brain power
to the job at hand. Imagine
the good that will be done
when a woman’s work can
be seen for what it is, free of
prejudice and biases.
Women
won’t
save
the
world. But letting individual
women into places they have
always deserved to be could.
Danielle Colburn can be reached at
decol@umich.edu
People don’t
actually want to
march for four
years, even if
they’re angry