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

