T
oo often women neglect
the sexism we ourselves
propagate. It is easy to
blame day-to-day adversities on
the patriarchy when it is such an
obvious source of culpability. From
people like Harvey Weinstein
and Brett Kavanaugh to issues
like the wage gap and paid
maternity leave, it seems as
though the news cycle is teeming
with examples of powerful men
suppressing
women’s
freedom
and autonomy. While these stories
are undoubtedly important and
justifiably
attention-grabbing,
they often overshadow other
smaller, but nevertheless profound
sources of sexism — those not at
the hands of power-seeking men
but instead at the hands of fellow
women.
Recently, an anonymously
written
document
began
circulating around campus in
which a former University of
Michigan student describes
her
experience
as
the
sorority recruitment chair.
She shares intimate details
of
her
chapter’s
archaic
and
impossible
standards
for acceptance and outlines
specific
implementations
including “Chapter Scores”
and “Coffee Dates” used to
judge potential new members
and pledges.
Perhaps most troubling,
but also least surprising, is
the confidential rating system
described in the document
which supposedly measures
how well a potential new
member “fits” in the sorority.
A system in which girls are
reduced to a singular number
is degrading in itself, but
it is the criterion by which
sorority sisters assign these
ratings that are especially
disturbing.
In
this
unnamed
chapter, recruits are rated
based
on
whether
they
remind
the
sisters
of
a
current
sorority
member.
This
policy
is
extremely
regressive and problematic.
While not explicitly stated,
the
recruitment
process
essentially
boils
down
to
girls judging other girls in
order to preserve traditional
standards of femininity.
At its core, sororities exist to
build community. For some, they
make a school of nearly 40,000
students seem a little less
intimidating. For others, they
offer a sense of community and
pride. But, as reflected in this
anonymous exposé, the rush
process can also be a breeding
ground for toxic expectations
that
warp
girls’
sense
of
confidence
and
self-worth.
Regardless of how daintily it is
phrased, sorority recruitment is
a game of conformity.
The adversities women face
in society usually boil down to
the inability to recognize women
as complex beings; the sorority
recruitment process embodies
this principle despite the fact that
it is entirely managed by females.
With just a few five-minute
conversations, new recruits are
judged, assigned a value and
passed on to the next house. On
the recruit’s side, this experience
is incredibly daunting. With
just a few minutes, she must
be confident and affable, but
most of all memorable. On the
other side, sorority sisters must
sort through hundreds of girls
and decide who will receive
a bid based on just a few brief
memories and superficial details.
In the field of psychology,
there is a phenomenon called the
halo effect. It is a cognitive bias
in which a single trait — such as
one’s physical attractiveness —
affects the overall perception of
the person. Rushing a sorority is
like the halo effect on steroids.
It is impossible to fairly gauge
anyone’s “fit” during the Greek
life recruitment process, so,
naturally, outward appearance
is equated with social worth,
while more telling qualities take
a back seat. Whether sororities
measure the value of these girls
based on a numerical system or
not is almost irrelevant. One way
or another, they must decide
who to accept and who to turn
away in a painfully short time
span. The only way to do this is
to participate in oversimplified
and often sexist profiling.
Among the thousands who
have participated in the Greek
life recruitment process are
girls with a wealth of different
aesthetics,
backgrounds
and
interests. It is these nuances
that define who we are. It is
these nuances that determine
where we truly “fit.” But, when
fall comes around, new recruits
assemble by the hundreds to
assume their most traditionally
feminine selves, tucking away
their most salient qualities in
the process.
We are all entitled to our
own identities. We are allowed
to be as classically feminine
as we want to be. We can like
dresses and makeup and cute
tailgate outfits. But when we
assign expectations and social
values to others based on our
own perceptions of femininity,
we give rise to the same sexism
we face in the workplace,
academia
and
general
society. Sorority recruitment
institutionalizes this sexism.
Not only does it reduce girls to
one-dimensional beings, but it
also perpetuates the concept
of an “ideal” woman, favoring
traditional beauty over its more
unconventional forms.
Feminism is not as simple
as just standing up to the
patriarchy. Achieving gender
equality
in
greater
society
begins with believing in it
ourselves.
Girls,
especially
those in sororities, need to
support each other, but too
often it is the opposite that
occurs. Too often we reduce
our fellow women to simpler
beings and are quick to judge
each
other
based
on
our
differences.
Sororities
and
women, in general, need to
hold ourselves to a higher
standard. We are interesting
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
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
HANK MINOR| COLUMN
Embrace the nuclear option
A
ny contender for the
Democratic presidential
nomination
in
2020
should
support
packing
the
Supreme Court — that is, voting
to expand the maximum number
of seats so the president can
confirm a liberal majority.
Yes, moderate liberals will
wring their hands and grieve yet
again the death of civility, but
they’ll forget with time. Especially
on the national level, where news
outlets breathlessly report news
with unsettling dramatic flair,
the average liberal is frustratingly
gullible. President George W. Bush
gives Michelle Obama a piece of
hard candy and suddenly he’s a
sweet old man who likes to paint,
not a two-term president who
initiated war in Iraq and systemic
torture at “black site” prisons.
That’s
beside
the
point,
though.
There
are
risks
to
nominating extreme candidates,
but presidential elections have
functioned in a fundamentally
different way from House of
Representatives
and
Senate
elections for some time now.
Throughout 2015 and the first
months
of
2016,
Republican
commentators bleated at their
party’s primary voters to choose
someone
other
than
Donald
Trump
or
Ted
Cruz,
both
personally repellant extremists.
A few months later, many were
on the Trump train — by summer,
those who wavered at all in their
support for the nominee were
outcasts. Moderates and party-
leaning centrists always bend the
knee, if you manage to sufficiently
beat them first and especially if
your candidate is an inspirational,
larger-than-life figure like Barack
Obama or Trump.
#TheResistance
has
been
kindling liberal outrage against
Trump since Nov. 9, 2016, and the
Democratic Party’s 2020 strategy
is almost guaranteed to be focused
on many people’s personal disgust
with the president. Packing the
Supreme Court would just be
another
manifestation
of
this
strategy; I don’t see why it has to
be considered especially shocking
or extreme. If Trump (and his
Supreme Court nominees, whoever
they end up being) are as dangerous
as we’re told day in and day out, it
seems reasonable to me that the
countermeasures be proportional.
The virtue of bipartisanship is
a vestige of the mid-20th century,
when
the
Democratic
Party
maintained unbroken control over
the House for 40 years. A substantial
portion of their members were
Southern conservatives; reaching
across the aisle was necessary for
Congress to accomplish anything,
given
that
both
parties
(but
especially the Democratic Party)
were fractured ideologically by
geography and race. The sorting
(and
subsequent
decline
of
bipartisanship) that has occurred
in recent years isn’t an affirmation
or violation of some abstract moral
code, it’s just a political phenomena.
A serious issue is that Trump
is certain to confirm a five-justice
majority on the court, and given
the health of some liberal justices –
Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer – he
might further increase that majority.
Any Democratic president —whether
they win in 2020, 2024 or later—
doesn’t just need power in the House
and Senate, they need their legislation
to survive legal challenges.
The Affordable Care Act nearly
died in the Supreme Court, and it
was just a watered-down version
of a Heritage Foundation plan
supported by former Presidential
nominee
Mitt
Romney.
If
a
Democratic government were to
implement some kind of public
option or Medicare expansion,
what’s
to
stop
the
solidly
conservative Supreme Court from
striking it down? If a Democratic
government tried to repair voting
rights, implement countermeasures
against
gerrymandering
or
revitalize worker’s rights, what’s to
stop five conservatives on the court
from neutralizing it?
One suggested difficulty with
breaking the norms that keep the
current number of Supreme Court
seats at nine — though there have
been greater and fewer in the past — is
that when the Republican Party takes
power again, it will likewise pack the
court with party loyalists. One can see
how this easily spirals so the Supreme
Court shrugs off its last threads of
partisan neutrality and becomes an
openly political institution.
This strikes me as useful,
though — part of the appeal of
court packing is that it would
accelerate the collapse and reform
of an institution already in the first
stages of decay. The delay of former
Supreme Court nominee Merrick
Garland’s confirmation was one
violation; the removal of the
Senate filibuster on Supreme Court
nominees was another. Norms
about the Supreme Court are
already falling apart to the benefit
of Republicans — in steadfastly
maintaining
faith,
Democrats
welcome their own defeat.
Mistakes have already been
made — Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg
and
Stephen
Breyer
should have both stepped aside
for younger replacements in 2013,
when Democrats still held the
Senate.
Lifetime
appointment,
though, encourages every justice
to cling to his or her seat for as long
as possible, and now concerned
liberals have to engage in macabre
speculation
about
whether
Ginsburg can stave off death long
enough for a Democrat to win the
presidency in 2020.
The Supreme Court as it exists
is unwieldy, arcane and filled with
negative incentives — the start of a
solution is to pack the courts. When
Democrats venerate tradition and
trust in the unwillingness of their
opponents to violate norms, they
don’t just risk losing a partisan
game, they risk the overturn of
policy protecting basic American
freedoms.
Any
Democratic
candidate for president should be
willing to endorse a strategy of
packing the court.
Sorority rush institutionalizes sexism
Diversity is a continuous fight
AMANDA ZHANG | COLUMN
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu
I
watched
psychologist
Christine
Blasey
Ford
testify before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in awe
of
her
courage,
patriotism,
sacrifice, trauma and tragedy.
Of all the things said and done
throughout the two days of
proceedings, one thing struck
me most of all: She was 15 when
Brett Kavanaugh locked her
in a room and assaulted her,
covering her mouth so she could
not scream for help.
My sister is 15.
As I listened to Ford recount the
horrific incident of 36 years ago,
my breath caught in my throat as I
tried to wrap my mind around this
happening to someone my sister’s
age — of this happening to my sister.
My sister is passionate and strong-
willed, with stronger and more
eloquently expressed opinions than a
great deal of my peers four years elder
and more educated. She is hilarious
and vibrant. She is unapologetically
and unequivocally herself. She is
extraordinarily kind, compassionate
and thoughtful. I think if you asked
her to describe herself, feminist
would be high on her list — and
rightly so. She, too, is brimming with
opinions and outrage about these
proceedings. But my most principal
thought throughout the proceedings
was that this could happen to her.
Watching Ford discuss the assault
she endured and the trauma that
follows her to this day, I thought of
my sister. Ford struggled for years
with friendships and academics.
She has two front doors due to
the claustrophobia that resulted
from her assault. Unaddressed and
undiscussed but, I think, wholly
relevant and uncoincidentally, as
a survivor of sexual assault with
lasting mental health implications,
she has dedicated her life to the
study of psychology. Ford’s sexual
assault changed her life. It changed
who she is as a person in countless,
immeasurable ways. At such an
integral point in adolescence and
development,
she
was
forever
changed because she was sexually
assaulted by Kavanaugh.
At such a pivotal age — 15 —
my sister is different and more
mature every time I come home
from school. One of my most
miraculous
and
rewarding
experiences has been witnessing
my sister become the young
woman she is, and it blows my
mind to think about how much
she has changed. I am powerless
in her protection against such
a vicious act, and can only hope
and pray to a divine power I
don’t believe in that she will be
able to continue to grow and
flourish without anything like
this happening to her. But it could
happen to her. It could happen
to
anyone.
Currently,
sexual
violence will happen to one in
three women in her lifetime. One
in four women will be sexually
abused before they turn 18.
With Kavanaugh, with Brock
Turner, with men who stand accused
of sexual assault, we hear that they are
“just boys.” That these accusations
will ruin their reputations and
lives. That it happened 36 years
ago. Accused perpetrators of sexual
violence have a tendency to use the
plights they go through as a result
of their committed assaults to turn
themselves into victims. More often
than not, society allows it.
But what about the women? Ford
was just a girl. For her and many
other victims of sexual assault,
their lives are ruined from the
moment these “boys” feel entitled
to treat women as objects for their
own pleasure. Women are faulted
for not reporting incidents and not
being believed when they do report
them. They are confined to silent
victimhood, their lives forever
altered, in a society that time and
time again believes men.
OLIVIA TURANO | OP-ED
Why believing women matters
Olivia Turano is an LSA Junior
Sorority recruitment
reduces girls to one-
dimensional beings
T
he 2018 Emmy Awards
aired on Sept. 17, 2018
and made history with
the most diverse group of
nominees ever. Twenty percent
more non-white actors were
nominated this year than last,
with 36 nominations going to
people of color. These figures
brought many inside and outside
of the Hollywood community
hope for a positive trend toward
inclusion and representation.
There were some significant
wins, with three people of color
awarded for the categories
Outstanding
Lead
Actress
in a Limited Series (Regina
King), Outstanding Supporting
Actress (Thandie Newton) and
Outstanding Lead Actor in a
Limited Series (Darren Criss —
a University of Michigan alum
who is half-Filipino, though
does not directly identify as
Asian
American).
Presented
a week before at the Creative
Arts Emmy Awards Show, all
four guest actor categories
were won by African American
actors:
Tiffany
Haddish,
Ron
Cephas
Jones,
Samira
Wiley
and
Katt
Williams.
These wins are significant,
deserving and promising. The
increased diversity is definitely
something to be celebrating.
However,
as
the
Emmys
progressed, it became clear this
great increase in nomination did
not directly equate to winning.
At the Primetime Emmy Awards,
which are covered vastly more
than the Creative Arts Emmys,
the three wins listed above were
the only people of color award
recipients of the night. People of
color found themselves all over
the presentation stage, though,
and the night was filled with
diversity-fueled commentary by
hosts and guests alike. This made
the disparity even more obvious.
The talent and performances of
white winners were laudable,
but the need to focus on the ever-
prominent issue of inclusion and
then have a show that scarcely
recognizes the talent of diverse
actors feels like positive dialogue
with limited action.
The push for greater diversity
in Hollywood became especially
popular in the wake of the
2015 and 2016 Oscar Awards
when no Black actors received
nominations. This started the
popular social media movement
#OscarsSoWhite,
which
has
been transferred to Hollywood
as a whole, targeting other
celebrations
and
recognition
shows like the Emmys. Since the
growth of discussion surrounding
the topic of Hollywood inclusion,
diversity has become prominent
in
the
awards
presentation
writing, as made evident by the
many jokes and two significant
sketches in this year’s Emmys.
Kenan
Thompson
and
Kate McKinnon, later joined
by Sterling K. Brown, Tituss
Burgess, Kristen Bell, Ricky
Martin,
RuPaul
and
John
Legend, led a musical number
titled
“We
Solved
It.”
It
functions as a reference to
diversity but also takes tackles
sexual assault in the midst of the
#MeToo movement. Thompson
and McKinnon congratulate the
Emmys for having the greatest
amount of nomination diversity
ever but go on to sarcastically
respond to those who have
championed this fact as a signal
of the end of the fight. The sketch
opened an important dialogue
about victories, explaining these
advancements
are
vital and
should be celebrated, but do not
indicate the end of the battle.
Michael Che, who co-hosted
with Colin Jost, also presented
a
pre-taped
sketch
titled
“Reparation Emmys,” where he
presented Emmys to African
American actors who he felt
should be recognized for their
past work. This bit included
Marla
Gibbs
from
“The
Jeffersons,”
Jimmie
Walker
from “Good Times,” Kadeem
Hardison from “A Different
World” and other prominent
Black actors. This was another
timely sketch that highlighted
the lack of recognition of diverse
talent in the past, which can
be easily translated into our
improving,
yet
struggling,
culture of inclusion.
The need to support art is
crucial to our culture, but the
art that we see does not always
match what real life is. As a
white woman, I have always
had my story told. I have seen
examples of people like me and
been able to model myself after
the plethora of women who
paved the way in film, television
and the media. But there are so
many other stories that need to
be told. Representation matters
to people. The Michigan Daily
had
two
wonderful
pieces
published this fall in the wake of
popular films “To All the Boys I
Loved Before” and “Crazy Rich
Asians” that discuss the issue
of representation in a more
authentic light. Amanda Zhang’s
“More than just a teen romance”
and Chelsea Racelis’ “So sayang:
A mother & daughter’s review
of Crazy Rich Asians” describe
what representation means and
should look like better than I
ever could. But what I do know is
everybody deserves to see their
identity and culture in the media,
and the actors and executives
who make that happen deserve
recognition for their work.
Though
the
conversation
about diversity is reaching peak
levels, the issue of inclusion is far
from solved. The growing tension
about the topic is important
and
the
continual
dialogue
about increasing diversity and
representation is significant, but
the small gains do not mean that
we can or should stop fighting
for more. Since the birth of
celebrity culture 100 years ago,
there has been institutionalized
discrimination and the talent
of people of color has not been
recognized. This is an issue for
our entire society. The system
is not going to be fixed in a few
awards seasons. Make diversity a
priority and keep fighting.
Erin White can be reached at
ekwhite@umich.edu
ERIN WHITE | COLUMN
Amanda Zhang can be reached at
amanzhan@umich.edu
Read more at MichiganDaily.com