“S
tates are where all the
action
in
domestic
policymaking
is.”
This is what I learned
from Jenna Bednar, a
University of Michigan
political
science
professor and specialist
on federalism, when
I sat down with her
this week. We agreed
that
state
elections
are
extraordinarily
important
and
are
often underrepresented
in our country. Much
of our country’s policy either
originates from or is informed by
state and local policies. As Supreme
Court
Justice
Louis
Brandeis
wrote in his dissent in New State
Ice Co. v. Liebmann, “it is one of
the happy incidents of the federal
system, that a single courageous
state may, if its citizens choose,
serve as a laboratory; and try novel
social and economic experiments
without risk to the rest of the
country.”
TV
comedian
John
Oliver, in a 2014 episode, cited that
Congress passed 185 laws in that
session. State legislatures, in the
same time frame, passed more than
24,000. But why are state elections
underrepresented if that is where
most domestic policy comes from?
Is there a certain group to blame?
Some might jump to blaming
the media, and they would have
a few fair points. We learn in our
government classes in high school
that elections are covered “like
horse races.” It’s fun and exciting
to track polling numbers up to
election day, so that’s what the
media often focuses on. It also
makes sense for the national news
media to focus on national news
and elections, leaving states to
fall by the wayside. Why should a
person watching CNN in Florida
care about Massachusetts’s state
legislature election? Between 2003
and 2012, the newspaper workforce
dropped 30 percent, including
a significant cutback in those
covering local and state politics for
both local and national news. This
has had several effects, including
candidates less engaged with local
news, along with those candidates
relying on TV ads to get their
messages out instead of interacting
with the media.
Maybe the political
parties are at fault.
Another
thing
we
learn in government is
that the job of political
parties is to get people
elected. These parties
do a great job of raising
money and spending
that money, but where?
If
you
watch
TV,
you’ve almost certainly
seen ads this election season for
Senate and gubernatorial races.
What about the state House of
Representatives or state Senate?
Follow the money. More than $2
billion was spent on the presidential
race in 2016 and $4 billion was
spent on all of the congressional
races combined.
Perhaps it is just the nature
of the local and state offices that
doesn’t attract this attention. One
point Bednar made was that at
lower levels of government there
is a higher likelihood of deviation
from party doctrines. If these
government officials are less likely
to follow strict party lines, then it
follows that parties would invest
less money because they stand to
get less in return.
It’d be easy to place the blame
here on one single entity and move
on, but an issue like this isn’t that
simple. There’s plenty of blame to go
around and some of that rightly falls
on us. What was the last state issue
you heard about? In Michigan, for
many, it is probably the Flint water
crisis. In this “information age” we
have unprecedented access to so
much information, but often we are
only willing to take in so little. We
stick to one cable news show or we
have our favorite newspaper.
Election turnout is typically
around 60 percent for presidential
elections, but only 40 percent
for midterms. It is even lower
for primary, local and off-year
elections. For example, in Dallas,
only 6.1 percent of eligible voters
participated
in
the
mayoral
election in May 2015. Turnout
is less than 20 percent for 15 of
the 30 most populous cities in
the country in mayoral elections.
Even in gubernatorial election
years, turnout is low. In every
gubernatorial election year since
1970, except for 2006, turnout was
below 50 percent in Michigan. Most
of the time the majority of people
don’t vote if it isn’t a presidential
election year. Generally speaking,
in only one year out of every
four does more than half of the
electorate make their way to a
ballot box.
Over the past few weeks, many
of my professors have encouraged
students to register by the Oct. 9
deadline. One of these professors
told us that her opinion is that
“if you don’t vote, you don’t get
to complain.” I would go further.
If you don’t cast an informed
vote, then you should not feel
comfortable commenting at all.
Take a minute to research the
candidates on every level. You
should know who is running for
office in your community and have
a general idea what they believe in,
beyond the “R” or “D” next to their
name. My father, for example, gets
an absentee ballot, so he can sit at
home with his laptop and research
each candidate’s platform online as
he fills in the bubbles.
We could blame the media,
or political parties, or candidates,
or some idea that our votes don’t
matter, for why people can’t find
their way to the ballot box and
why many don’t have a strong
grasp of the politics of their local
community. I’d rather take the
blame and the responsibility on
myself to get informed and to do
my part in deciding the future of
this country. It’s just as easy to lie
to yourself and say you’ll put effort
into getting informed as it is to tell
yourself that you’re going to start
going to the gym. However, we
have more to lose in our elections
if we don’t get informed than we do
if we skip the gym a few times, so
please, find the ballot box but only
after doing some research.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, October 5, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
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
MILES STEPHENSON | COLUMN
Can disaffiliated Greek life save itself?
A
s the fall 2018 Greek life
rush
continues
across
campus,
disaffiliated
fraternities and their relationships
with
incoming
students
are
left in an uncertain purgatory.
Fraternities officially affiliated with
the University of Michigan operate
under a well-defined framework
of rules. They’re geared to further
focus on charitable work, inclusion
and academic performance. Even
the signing of bids for students
chosen fraternities is administered
through Interfraternity Council
personnel. Recently, however, six
fraternities (some of which with
strong national charters and a
large student base) have chosen
to divorce themselves from the
University and its IFC regulations.
This
separation
raises
more
questions than it answers. How
will these disaffiliated fraternities
continue
to
operate
in
the
University’s social ecosystem? How
will students perceive this new
type of underground fraternity?
And how will these disaffiliated
fraternities impact the University’s
Greek life that is already under siege
for hazing, alcohol-related harm
and sexual misconduct incidents?
The answers to these questions
might be within the fraternities
themselves.
Colleges
and
universities
across the United States have
recently been grappling with how
to regulate Greek life in the wake
of a series of incidents. U.S. News
and World Report has reported
that American campuses have
experienced at least one student
death by hazing every year since
1959. Universities are meant to be
crucibles of knowledge and self-
exploration, not pitfalls where
students are sent into potentially
life-threatening situations. The
University of Michigan, with its
tradition of solving complex social
and
organizational
problems
since its founding in 1817, and as
a university with one of the oldest
and richest Greek communities in
the country, must take a national
leadership role in forging a
lasting and workable solution to
this problem. It is important to
note that fraternities, just like
the students that compose the
memberships, are individual and
widely
varying.
Disaffiliating
so-called “bad actor” fraternities
under this “eviction” system only
treats the symptoms and not the
root causes of isolated, erratic
behavior, and may exacerbate
the dangerous situations. And
the prospect of creating a new,
disaffiliated
category
of
off-
campus housing could cultivate
a “Wild West” dynamic and
compound
the
issues
the
University seeks to control.
The University boasts some
of the brightest minds in the
world, which should be called
to action to craft a solution that
involves input from fraternity and
sorority
leadership,
university
administration
and
functional
academics.
Instituting
rules
designed to “bring the frats into
compliance,” for instance, new
zoning ordinances that shackle
fraternities to policy without
due
process,
will
result
in
rebellion, witnessed by the recent
disaffiliations of six fraternities
due to a zoning code restriction
passed by the Ann Arbor City
Council
this
summer.
Surely
there is a solution that doesn’t
“evict” fraternities, but instead
empowers them to self-regulate
within a system that challenges
them to meet the standards of
the community. This would allow
them to operate and manage
themselves appropriately, while
still proving to the University’s
community that they are a force of
good. They could meet challenges
of financial performance (houses
remain solvent and self-paying),
academic
performance
and
volunteering and charitable work.
Under this proposal, the IFC
would function less as university
adults imposing arbitrary rules
and more as an apparatus working
more closely with the fraternities
to better manage their houses,
their safety and their success.
Not
only
would
this
allow
the fraternities to have more
accountability, but it also might
enliven chapters to run with
their new personal responsibility.
Greek rushing is up 45 percent at
universities around the country
since 2006, and a system like this
at the University could pave the
way for self-regulated fraternities
across the United States.
But why do we have Greek
life anyway? It’s flawed at its core
and we should just ban the whole
thing, some will argue. Greek
life at the University constitutes
22 percent of the undergraduate
student
population
(that’s
more than 6,200 students) and
generates
millions
of
dollars
annually for the Ann Arbor
economy. The chapters hire cooks,
cleaners, sanitation workers and
repairmen
to
maintain
their
houses, buy bulk food and provide
amenities
for
the
residential
students.
Fraternities
and
sororities, social and otherwise,
are woven into the fabric of the
university’s social, academic and
charitable life. Furthermore, these
Greek life organizations have
connections all throughout the
private business sector and even
the political sphere. U.S. News
and World Report reports that 44
percent of the U.S. presidents, 35
members of the U.S. Senate, and
60 members of the U.S. House
have held fraternity memberships.
Furthermore, in the past year,
the
Interfraternity
Council
grade point average was higher
than the all-male average for
University students, underscoring
that Greek life membership and
academic performance are not
mutually exclusive. A solution to
the disaffiliated fraternity issue
must recognize that Greek life
is an overwhelmingly positive
force at the University, offering
relationships,
housing,
social
experiences
and
networking
for thousands of students each
year. Hazing and underage
binge drinking are exceptions to
the rule, and the University and
local law enforcement must be
uncompromising in attending to
these situations. Working from
the excellent, albeit imperfect
framework and organization of
the existing IFC, the University
must challenge and empower
fraternity and sorority leadership
to collaborate on policies, rules
and procedures designed to better
police themselves.
What state elections?
DAVID HAYSE | COLUMN
David Hayse can be reached at
dhayse@umich.edu.
DAVID
HAYSE
O
n
Tuesday
afternoon,
President Donald Trump
expressed his sympathy
for
young
men
in
America while speaking
to reporters outside the
White House. In his
words: “It is a very scary
time for young men in
America, where you can
be guilty of something
you may not be guilty
of.” His view represents
a wider concern among
some
conservative
Americans in light of the
accusations against Supreme Court
nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the
#MeToo movement at large. They
are concerned with due process
and fear the rights of the accused
are being undermined in cases
of sexual assault. However, these
worries are largely unfounded, as
study after study has confirmed
that false accusations are incredibly
uncommon. Thus, this line of
backlash was predictable coming
from Trump. He concluded his
statements with a starkly less
familiar sentiment; when asked if he
had any words for young American
women, he responded, “Women are
doing great.”
Maybe all of the women around
me and I are anomalies, but it does
not quite seem that women are
doing great. On the contrary, the
Kavanaugh hearings have brought
back memories of sexual trauma
for many victims, who are mostly
women. I did not plan on writing
about Kavanaugh (again) this week. I
had hoped my column this semester
would be centered around a topic of
pure intellectual curiosity and not
my own experiences with gender-
based violence and sexual trauma.
Unfortunately, I have not gone an
hour — waking or sleeping — since
last Thursday morning
without reliving those
experiences.
Last
Thursday
morning
is
when
Stanford
University psychologist
Christine Blasey Ford
sat in front of the Senate
Judiciary
Committee
to provide testimony
about her assault at
the hands of Brett
Kavanaugh.
I had a class with a no-screen
policy for the first hour of the
hearings, so I sat in blissful
ignorance of the texts flying into
my phone about the heartbreak that
each of my loved ones felt watching
Ford speak. Then I watched the
committee question her throughout
my stats lecture, with the screen
split on my laptop between notes
and C-SPAN. I expected to feel
empathy for her — I was too a victim
of sexual assault and I feel quite
strongly about keeping abusers
away from power. I did not expect
to leave the lecture hall in a panic,
heart pounding and tears forming.
I had forgotten what a panic attack
felt like. It had been a year or so since
I experienced one. But I sat on some
concrete ledge outside the Modern
Languages
Building
and
that
once familiar feeling of tightness
in the chest, shortness of breath
and desperate desire to escape
overwhelmed me. I could only
think, “I was 15 too,” and about how
infantile my 15-year-old self seems
now. Ford’s testimony forced me to
relive that experience in a new way.
Yes — I’d thought about my assaults,
I’d written about them, assessed
them, but it was always from a
numbed distance provided by the
passed time. I had dealt with those
experiences more as an onlooker.
But her words broke through that
numbness, and as she described the
night from her own point of view,
I became able to access my own
younger self’s point of view.
My friends expressed similar
accounts of watching the hearings
— that they were surprised by their
own reactions. It led one friend
to stay away from campus all day
due to anxiety, and another friend
to come to terms with her own
experience — admitting to herself
that she too had been assaulted. A
close friend revealed how similar
Kavanaugh was to her own abuser
— a privileged, white, private school
boy. My friends and I were not an
anomaly, though. Rape, Incest and
Abuse National Network had its
busiest day on record last Thursday.
Survivors across the country were
shaken by Ford’s tragedy, and by
Kavanaugh’s vehement denial of it.
Watching her brokenness so clearly
juxtaposed with his indignant rage
was simply too close to home.
So, on Thursday, and in the days
to follow, American women have
not been gloating in our vengeful
attempted takedown of a powerful
man. We have been mourning
for Ford, both now and at age 15,
for each other and for ourselves.
Once again, we have been forced
to wring out our trauma in the
public sphere in a hopeless effort to
stop our political institutions from
further demise.
“Women are doing great”
MARGOT LIBERTINI | COLUMN
Margot Libertini can be reached at
mlibertini@umich.edu.
MARGOT
LIBERTINI
A
s is often the case with these
things, the 73rd session of
the United Nations General
Assembly raised more questions
than answers. The two weeks were
jam-packed with the events therein,
churning out headline after headline.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu embarrassed himself by
way of his shameless hypocrisy and
lies about Iran’s nonexistent “atomic
warehouse.” Somali Foreign Minister
Ahmed Awad Isse gave a powerful
speech informing the assembly of the
huge strides his country has taken on
the path towards stability.
I could go on and on. The
developments were plenty and to go
through all of them would be, to put
it simply, excessive. Rather, I would
like to focus on what transpired
during the course of the two weeks
specifically in regard to United States-
Venezuela relations and what should
be done going forward.
On Sept. 26, Nicolas Maduro
shocked the world when, during a
speech to the General Assembly, he
stated that he is willing and ready
to come to the table and meet with
the Trump administration. Think
of just how amazing that is. The
Trump administration has been
openly mulling the idea of invading
Venezuela and overthrowing, and
likely killing, Maduro since at least
August 2017. While some might say
he has been backed into a corner, to
offer to speak with those who plot
your demise is noteworthy, to say the
least.
The
Trump
administration
has yet to comment on the offer. To
decline Maduro’s offer would only
serve to expose the malevolence of
their foreign policy even further. By
all accounts, they are still set on the
idea of a military intervention in the
South American nation. What did
you expect with John “the earlier you
strike, the more damage you can do”
Bolton as national security adviser?
Keep in mind the current
administration is engaged in active
bombing campaigns of eight different
countries. They have also expanded
the war in Afghanistan, which is both
the longest and most unpopular war
in American history. Moreover, the
administration has pursued what
essentially amounts to a scorched-
earth policy in Iraq and Syria,
leading to record numbers of civilian
casualties. All this is just scratching
the surface as it pertains to the scope
of their evil.
Nevertheless, as we see with the
current rhetoric on Venezuela, it is
clear that the administration is still
hell-bent on spreading death and
destruction abroad. When addressing
anti-Maduro
protesters
outside
the United Nations building, Nikki
Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, said, “We are not just going
to let the Maduro regime backed by
Cuba hurt the Venezuelan people
anymore.” If she had even one iota of
honesty to her being, she would have
concluded that statement by saying
“now it’s our turn.”
The simple truth is that this
administration does not care about
Venezuelan lives. If they did, they
would not be banging the war drums
and calling for a coup — a move
that would unleash untold horrors
on a country that has already been
through hell. If they really cared about
Venezuelan lives, they would lift their
crippling sanctions regime that has
done nothing to target corruption but
only foment instability.
If you want to help, then help.
Invasion is not the way to do it.
Attacking the independence of a
sovereign nation-state is not the
way to do it. It’s about time we start
making friends instead of enemies.
This hypocrisy was addressed
directly by none other than Maduro
himself. He said, “Donald Trump
said he was worried about Venezuela,
he wanted to help Venezuela … I stand
ready to talk with an open agenda on
everything that he might wish to
talk about with the United States of
America.”
I must be honest, with the cast
of characters currently running this
country, prospects for peace do indeed
look grim. I have little confidence in
both bureaucrats and elected officials
to do the right thing simply out of the
goodness of their hearts. It is up to us —
the people — to put pressure on them.
And so, I would like to conclude
this column with a call to action. In the
1960s and early 1970s, college campuses
were at the heart of the anti-war
movement. University students across
the nation stood up and protested
against the immoral, unjust Vietnam
War. The role this played in advancing
the agenda of eventual disengagement
cannot be underestimated.
Let those honorable men and
women be our example. We need
to rekindle that flame. I want to see
students once again rise up in a public
way to protest the horrors of war. As
patriotic Americans, we cannot allow
for our so-called leaders to drag us into
another foreign conflict.
I say all of this with a tremendous
amount of urgency. We must do
something fast. And what better
place to start than the University of
Michigan, home of the leaders and
the best? Organize!
No war in Venezuela
ELIAS KHOURY | COLUMN
Elias Khoury can be reached at
ekhoury@umich.edu.
Miles Stephenson can be reached at
mvsteph@umich.edu.