“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.