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