W 

hen colleges first began 
to go co-ed about the 
time of the Civil War, 
higher education was still very much 
a man’s game. It wasn’t until 1980, 
nearly 100 years after the start, that 
women and men began to attend 
college at similar rates. Soon enough, 
women began to outpace men in 
terms of attending college and earning 
degrees. As of 2015, 72.5 percent of 
women 
who 
recently 
graduated 
high school were enrolled in college, 
compared to 65.8 percent of men of 
the same demographic. Furthermore, 
women who are enrolled in two-year 
or four-year institutions tend to be 
more successful in their academic and 
extracurricular endeavors.
It is now apparent that American 
women have unprecedented access 
to a college education that was never 
afforded to women of past generations. 
However, despite this access, women 
are still woefully underrepresented in 
academia and beyond. This infuriating 
fact raises the question of why women 
continue to fall behind in leadership 
roles while they earn more degrees.
Historically, 
attending 
college 
was largely reserved for typically 
economically privileged young men 
looking to pursue careers in the fields 
of ministry, medicine or law. As women 
were usually excluded from such 
careers, a college education wasn’t 
practical. As the workforce began to 
diversify, so too did college educations. 
Furthermore, women began to enter 
the workforce in then-unparalleled 
numbers 
as 
American 
society 
underwent the rapid transformation of 
social norms that began during World 
War II. From this point forward, 
women began to work outside of the 
home at much more regular rates. 
Eventually, a college degree became 
essential to be competitive in the 
workforce. This reliance on college 
degrees coincided with the onset of 
second-wave feminism. Also referred 
to as the “women’s movement,” this 
uprising of feminist ideals focused 
largely on gender equality for women 
in work and education. Shortly 
thereafter, women began to attend 
college in rapidly increasing rates, 
eventually rising to the rates they are 
today.
It is wildly apparent that women 
today are more able to attend college 
than ever before. Female college 
students now are more likely to 
have higher grade point averages 
than male students, both when they 
begin and when they finish their 
higher education. Women in college 
also tend to schedule themselves 
more 
aggressively 
in 
terms 
of 
extracurriculars, spend more time 
studying and participate in school-
related activities. However, unlike 

their male counterparts, female college 
graduates are not as likely to encounter 
striking success in their careers of 
choice. For example, despite similar 
levels of education, the gender wage 
gap still persists, with women earning 
between 70 and 90 percent of what 
men do on average in their respective 
fields.
The dearth of female leadership 
in business and politics extends deep 
into other spheres. While women are 
much more likely to be teachers in 
primary and high school settings, this 
trend does not continue into higher 
education. In American universities, 
slightly more than a quarter of full 
professors were women in 2013. In 
terms of leadership positions, women 
fall behind even more so. Women are 
extremely underrepresented among 
senior faculty in many universities. 
A lack of female academics holding 
positions as college deans or university 
provosts contributes to the fact that just 
over 25 percent of university presidents 
were women in 2012. This statistic 
is undoubtedly not representative of 
college student body populations as 
a whole. In colleges and universities 
nationwide, 
women 
represent 
nearly 60 percent of students. Even 
in higher education, where women 
are continually making gains in 
terms of attendance and academic 
success, they still remain woefully 
underrepresented in the leadership of 
their own universities.
In many cases, elite universities 
are among the worst offenders. The 
University of Oxford in the United 
Kingdom, which often boasts its status 
as among the world’s most ancient of 
institutions of higher education, did not 
appoint a female vice-chancellor until 
2016. The University of Pennsylvania 
became the first Ivy League institution 
to appoint a female president in 1994. 
The University of Michigan did not 
have a female president until Mary 
Sue Coleman assumed the role in 2002 
— 185 years after the University was 
founded.
Aside from leadership roles in 
universities, female professors and 
other educators still fall behind male 
colleagues in terms of respect within 
their positions. This is most evident 
in an examination of the academic 
positions women hold within colleges 
and universities. As of 2015, women 
held nearly half of all tenure-track 
positions within universities, but only 
accounted for 38.4 percent of actual 
tenure positions. Similarly, women 
working in academia are more likely 
to hold lower-ranked positions. Female 
academics represent more than half of 
assistant professors and 44.9 percent of 
associate professors, yet also account 
for just 32.4 percent of full professors. 
Of instructor positions, which are 

typically among the lowest ranking 
in academia, women account for 57 
percent. Furthermore, at all faculty 
levels from instructor to tenured 
professor, male academics out-earn 
their female peers. In the 2016-2017 
school year, male full professors 
earned an average salary of $104,493, 
compared to $98,524 for women at the 
same level.
The reasons for these disparities 
are clearly not because women are less 
intellectually capable than men, or any 
less hardworking. Yet, these disparities 
persist nonetheless and permeate into 
fields outside of academia. Women 
are continually underrepresented in 
a multitude of professional leadership 
positions. Just 4.8 percent of CEOs of 
Fortune 500 companies are women, a 
number that has fallen from 2017’s all-
time high of 6.4 percent. In the political 
realm, just 23 current U.S. senators 
(soon to be 24) are women. Despite this 
low number, this is still a record high for 
women in the Senate. In the U.S. House 
of Representatives, just 19.3 percent 
are women, though the percentage is 
expected to grow after the midterm 
elections. Historically, there have only 
been 39 female governors in the U.S. As 
a demographic, women, who comprise 
50.8 percent of the U.S. population 
and who are more highly educated 
than they have ever been, are still 
represented by governing bodies that 
are overwhelmingly male-dominated.
In the 21st century, women are 
undoubtedly 
experiencing 
fewer 
obstacles in the educational field 
than ever before. However, what are 
the tangible effects of this increase 
in higher education? Women as a 
whole have proven they are capable of 
success beyond college, yet few women 
are ever able to obtain such success. 
Women still lag behind men in terms 
of pay, political representation and 
leadership in business and education. 
Women now attend college more often 
than men do, yet they are less likely to 
be taught by female full professors or 
be led by female university presidents. 
This reality, though, is one that may 
be rapidly changing. In the 2018 
midterm elections, a surge of female 
candidates launched campaigns and 
are changing the political landscape. 
Women continue to attend college 
at unprecedented rates, earning a 
record number of degrees. No matter 
how many women enter office after 
the midterms, or how many female 
university presidents are appointed 
in the near future, women deserve a 
much louder voice in the conversation 
than what is currently being afforded 
to them. 

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, November 9, 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

ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN

The gender gap of academia

Defending the legacy of the Michigan native

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

Alanna Berger can be reached at 

balanna@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

N

o matter how you slice it, the 2018 midterm elections were historic. 
The next Congress will include the most women ever elected to the 
House of Representatives and the Senate, including the first two 
Muslim-American congresswomen. Early turnout estimates suggest that 
Tuesday’s turnout blew all previous midterms out of the water, an encouraging 
sign of rising voter enthusiasm and waning political apathy. Here in Michigan, 
voters approved two pro-democracy ballot proposals by wide margins that 
will prevent partisan gerrymandering and make voting easier for all Michigan 
residents. All of these are encouraging signs of a healthy electorate, despite 
President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on democratic values.

Yet Tuesday’s elections also 
showcased the dark side of 
American democracy in 2018. 
Voter suppression served as a 
major overtone throughout the 
Georgia 
gubernatorial 
race, 
where Republican candidate 
Brian Kemp also served as 
the chief election official for 
his own race in his role as 
Georgia 
secretary 
of 
state. 
Refusing to step down from his 
position during the election, 
Kemp 
slashed 
voter 
rolls 
using an exact match law that 
predominantly removed Black, 
Latinx and Asian voters from 
the rolls — echoing the state’s 
dark history of suppressing 
Black 
voters. 
But 
these 
barriers to casting a ballot 
were not specific to Georgia. 
Across the nation, long lines, 
insufficient 
equipment 
and 
general chaos plagued polling 
centers, potentially serving as a 
deterrent for those with a busy 
schedule seeking to cast their 
vote. Even in Detroit, some 
would-be voters left polling 
places after waiting hours for 
outdated voting equipment to 
receive maintenance. A healthy 
democracy requires maximal 
election 
participation. 
The 
hurdles placed in front of 

voters Tuesday only suppressed 
democratic ideals.
Though 
these 
obstacles 
to voting were widespread, 
Democrats still managed to 
fare quite well in many of the 
districts won by Trump in 2016. 
By ignoring Trump’s racist 
dog-whistling about a caravan 
from Central America, they 
achieved success by focusing 
on a consistent message of 
improving 
health 
care 
and 
policies that would benefit all 
Americans. This tactic worked 
favorably 
for 
Democrats, 
especially those seeking to 
flip 
suburban 
communities. 
However, 
they 
still 
have 
ways to go in appealing to 
working-class voters in rural 
areas. Given Trump’s overall 
popularity, and the impact his 
trade policy has had on rural 
communities, we would have 
hoped Democrats could have 
turned many of these districts 
blue. Despite this, Democrats 
should 
not 
abandon 
these 
districts and instead strive 
for a more unifying message 
that plays well in both suburbs 
and rural areas before the 
2020 campaign. Further, the 
barriers to voting revealed 
during this election call for a 

more fervent push from the 
new Democratic House to put 
election reform at the top of 
the agenda. We hope that pro-
democracy measures, such as 
proposed packages to mandate 
independent 
commissions 
to 
draw 
congressional 
districts and reforming the 
congressional 
ethics 
code 
become 
priorities 
for 
both 
newly elected lawmakers and 
incumbents. Efforts to combat 
voter suppression as well as 
a strategy to listen and take 
into account the needs and 
sentiments of rural America are 
vital for Democrats.
Though this election cycle 
has 
concluded, 
the 
energy 
we’ve seen cannot dwindle. 
We hope voters do not let 
the mixed results of 2018 
discourage them from voting in 
the future. We’re thrilled to see 
the enthusiasm this election 
turned out on campus, and hope 
that it keeps college students 
permanently engaged. As many 
close elections this cycle have 
shown, every vote counts. Don’t 
let complacency get the best of 
you. Continue to stay educated 
on the issues confronting our 
nation and ensure your voice is 
heard at every opportunity.

I

f you have never been to 
or do not plan on visiting 
Northern Michigan during the 
summertime, then you have never 
lived, nor do you truly ever plan 
to. I have experienced the timeless, 
suave waters of Michigan that are 
extraordinary in their own respect 
and are only a part of Michigan’s 
breathtaking nature that keeps its 
inhabitants here year-round. I recall 
the crystal blue water that you can see 
shimmering within the vast expanse 
of Lake Huron, while standing only 
steps away from the shore on the rocks 
surrounding Mackinac Island. You 
can feel the chill of Lake Michigan 
just viewing it from the sand dunes, 
remembering the Legend of the 
Sleeping Bear as you see the silhouettes 
of the North and South Manitou 
Islands contrasting the setting sun. You 
can feel the essence of a land defined by 
water. It’s never going to be the place 
for everyone, but it will forever be the 
roots of those lucky enough to call it 
home.
We stay here because we’ve been 
raised to appreciate the natural 
beauty Michigan gives throughout 
each season. This beauty has been 
prioritized and maintained by the 
Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources 
and 
Department 
of 
Environmental Quality — agencies 
of the state of Michigan that manage 
the use of natural resources within 
state parks, for recreation and in 
industry. Specifically, the protection 
of Michigan’s water resources has 
been the subject of the Michigan 
Water Strategy, a 30-year plan created 
by the Michigan Office of the Great 
Lakes in collaboration with other 
departments to sustain Michigan’s 
globally unique water heritage. The 
plan addresses several demands 
from the government and the people, 
some of which include restoring 
and protecting aquatic ecosystems, 
investing in water infrastructure and 
building governance tools to address 
future problems that surface with 

Michigan’s water resources. While 
this strategy specifically aims to 
address the forefront environmental 
and economic concerns we have for 
the Great Lakes, it also pertains to the 
quality of Michigan’s remaining water 
bodies by nature.
Though the Office of the Great 
Lakes is responsible for carrying out 
the objectives of the water strategy, 
the actions of this group within the 
Department of Natural Resources 
is influenced by the department’s 
director, which is appointed by 
Michigan’s governor. With a 53.3 
percent 
majority, 
Democratic 
candidate Gretchen Whitmer was 
elected Michigan’s newest governor 
on Tuesday. As a person who is 
wholeheartedly invested in using 
practical methods to improve the 
environment and ensure its quality 
remains at the forefront of our 
lifestyles, I am elated to know that 
she has assumed this government 
position that directly influences the 
workings of the department with the 
capacity to progress our environment. 
While there are always logistics of a 
politician’s stance that are questioned 
by opponents or skeptics, her general 
mindset for the environment should be 
argued as our best ticket to a brighter 
future for the Great Lakes and other 
encompassing natural settings.
In 
particular, 
Whitmer 
has 
expressed her dissent toward the 
continuation of Enbridge’s Line 5 in the 
Great Lakes due to the potential risks 
that it poses to water quality. Several 
recent cases have demonstrated the 
pipeline’s questionable durability and 
its susceptibility to the mechanisms of 
other methods of water transportation. 
For instance, a vessel that contributed 
to the mineral oil spill in the Straits of 
Mackinac due to an anchor strike in 
April 2018 is believed to be the same 
vessel that created three small dents 
in Enbridge’s pipeline, forcing it to 
shut down until it could withstand 
sufficient 
pressure 
after 
repair. 
While no catastrophe occurred in 

this scenario, Whitmer sees that it 
is only a matter of time before the 
risk of an oil leak or spill in the Great 
Lakes becomes reality and that the 
people who are served by the pipeline 
are not exactly the ones who will 
suffer the consequences. She has also 
expressed dedication toward finding 
solutions to Michigan’s other water 
crises, admitting the reprehensible 
failures of the government that led 
to the crisis in Flint and failures of 
managing contamination sites that 
led to the outbreak of polyfluoroalkyl 
substances.
In addition to her intention to 
address the broad goals outlined 
by the water strategy, Whitmer 
also plans to focus on innovative 
freshwater 
transportation 
and 
infrastructure, statewide education 
on water economies and natural 
resource 
conservation 
with 
the 
EPA’s Department of Great Lakes 
and Freshwater and the U.S. Climate 
Alliance. She believes in the sheer 
power of collaboration when it comes 
to accomplishing the necessary steps 
toward protecting our waters and our 
ecosystems: “We can’t unilaterally 
control 
the 
federal 
government, 
but what we can do is get every 
congressional member and every 
governor of all the Great Lake states 
and all the states that rely on the Great 
Lakes and create a caucus that will 
have some might. Because every time 
Donald Trump introduces a budget 
that cuts oversight funding for our 
Great Lakes, we need to be active, 
rolling up our sleeves.” With Governor-
elect Whitmer showing determination 
and focus on the quality of our water, I 
trust that her intentions for the Great 
Lakes will translate to the various 
other environmental components that 
make up our gift of a home, and we 
will stay because she will uphold these 
values that define us.

Kianna Marquez can be reached at 

kmarquez@umich.edu.

EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU

Reflections on the midterms

